A MOTORIST who suffered an epilepsy attack and was involved in an accident yesterday failed in his High Court defence that he was not liable as the accident was inevitable.
Mr Killian Parker (38), a storeman, of St Mary's Road, Crumlin, Dublin, was ordered to pay more than £5,000 and costs to the owner of another car, Mr Henry O'Brien, of Crumlin Road, Dublin.
Legal sources believe it was the first time in Ireland that a defence of "automatism" - a state of unconsciousness where a person is without control of his actions - was pleaded in civil proceedings.
Mr O'Brien was suing Mr Parker arising out of an accident near the junction of Clonard Road and Crumlin Road on September 24th, 1994. The case came before the High Court on appeal against an order of the President of the Circuit Court dismissing Mr O'Brien's claim.
Mr Justice Lavan, in a reserved judgment, said Mr Parker's defence was usually associated with criminal law. Mr O'Brien's car was stopped at a pedestrian crossing. When the lights went green the car passed through and within a short distance Mr Parker's car turned into and struck the front of Mr O'Brien's car and collided with two other cars.
The judge said Mr Parker had stated in evidence he had not suffered from any significant illness before that evening. The family doctor said Mr Parker had become aware of a strange smell and reported noticing colours to be unusually vivid. The next thing he remembered was his car crashing and the interrogation by gardai.
Mr Parker was referred to a consultant neurologist who performed an EEG, a brain scan and blood tests, all of which were normal. A normal EEG was not uncommon in epilepsy and the neurologist started Mr Parker on medication. He had had no attacks since.
The neurologist in his evidence said Mr Parker suffered complex partial seizure, which would allow some consciousness. It would allow a person suffering from the condition to make a decision.
Mr Hugh Hartnett, for Mr Parker, had submitted that where a defendant proved his actions were the result of a sudden illness the defence of inevitable accident was made out. He claimed it was conceded that the illness must result in "automatism".
Mr Mark de Blacam, counsel for Mr O'Brien, said even if the court decided that at the time of the accident Mr Parker was an automaton, there was negligence on his part because the evidence showed he recollected symptoms which, had he exercised reasonable care, would have led him to stop driving.
Mr Justice Lavan said he was satisfied the defence of automatism required there must be a total destruction of voluntary control. Reduced control was not sufficient to maintain the defence.
Applying that test to the evidence, he was satisfied Mr Parker had not established that defence on the balance of probabilities. Despite experiencing some difficulties at home, Mr Parker was able to make a decision to drive.