What you need to know
- In Sykula v O’Reilly, the High Court reduced a psychiatric injury award by 50% after finding the plaintiff’s symptoms were “multifactorial”, attributable both to a road traffic accident and to unrelated external stressors.
- The Court confirmed that the Egg Shell Skull Rule still applies to psychiatric injury claims. Defendants cannot escape liability simply because a plaintiff’s pre-existing vulnerability led to greater injuries than expected.
- However, courts can and will adopt a holistic approach to causation, distinguishing between symptoms caused by the incident and those arising from unrelated factors such as COVID-19 isolation, financial pressure or family difficulties.
- This decision reinforces the importance for defendants of thoroughly investigating a plaintiff’s background and circumstances, including through surveillance and social media reports.
- Medical experts should be instructed to assess a plaintiff’s full psychiatric history and present circumstances so that causation, and any apportionment for external stressors, can be accurately evaluated.
Background
The plaintiff in the case Sykula v O’Reilly[1] was involved in a minor road traffic accident and brought a claim for psychiatric injuries.
The plaintiff had a significant history of anxiety and depression in the years leading up to the accident as a result of workplace stress and a recent bereavement in her family. However, she alleged that she was not experiencing any mental health difficulties at the time of the accident.
Although admitting liability, the defendant questioned whether the plaintiff’s psychiatric condition was solely attributable to the accident. The defendant argued the plaintiff’s symptoms had been present at the time of the accident and were therefore unrelated.
Decision
From the medical evidence provided, Mr Justice Ferriter was satisfied that the plaintiff’s prior psychiatric conditions had resolved by the date of the accident. In applying the Egg Shell Skull Rule, he found that while the plaintiff was a “bad candidate” for the accident by virtue of her pre-existing psychiatric vulnerability, the defendants could not escape liability simply because the injuries sustained were more significant than might have been expected.
Crucially, the Court also found that external stressors had been a contributing factor to the plaintiff’s psychiatric condition. The Judge noted that COVID-19 isolation, financial pressure, ongoing family law litigation and homelessness had all significantly exacerbated the plaintiff’s psychiatric condition. He found that the plaintiff’s symptoms were “multifactorial” and held that only 50% of the plaintiff’s symptoms were as a result of the accident itself. The Court awarded €60,000 for the plaintiff’s past and future psychiatric injuries but discounted this figure by €30,000 to reflect the contributing external factors.
Conclusion
The judgment in Sykula v O’Reilly emphasises that Irish Courts can and will adopt a holistic approach to causation where multiple factors have contributed to a plaintiff’s psychiatric condition.
It is therefore important that defendants consider all relevant external stressors that could be affecting a plaintiff’s psychiatric condition. Utilising investigative tools, such as surveillance and social media reports, can greatly assist in providing a holistic overview of a plaintiff’s history and present circumstances. Where external stressors may be a relevant factor, it is crucial that medical experts are instructed to interrogate a plaintiff’s history and present circumstances so that causation can be accurately assessed.
For more information and expert advice in defending similar claims, please contact a member of our Insurance & Risk team.
The content of this article is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other advice.
[1] [2025] IEHC 638
