A SUPREME Court judge said yesterday that Irish Rail had to face one of the hard facts of life in having to pay full compensation in a case arising from a crash on the rail line between Dublin and Knock, Co Mayo, in 1989.
The rail company is likely to receive a £4 million compensation claim from 200 people involved in the accident.
Irish Rail faces the prospect of paying 100 per cent of the claims, even though a High Court judge decided in a test case the company was only 30 per cent responsible for the accident.
The train taking pilgrims from Dublin to Knock collided with cattle on the line between Ballyhaunis and Claremorris in September, 1989.
Many claims have been made but only one so far has been heard. In that case, the High Court awarded £16,000 to Mr Giovanni Gaspari, of St Ignatius Road, Dublin.
The High Court decided Irish Rail was 30 per cent liable and the owner of the cattle, Mr Patrick Diskin, of Ballygowan, Co Mayo, 70 per cent responsible. However, Mr Diskin was stated not to be a "mark" for damages.
Under the Civil Liability Act of 1961, a person who gets an award for damages can claim the full amount from one defendant if the other cannot pay.
Irish Rail, faced with a large number of similar claims brought a constitutional challenge against the 1961 Act claiming it violated property rights and was not fair.
The Supreme Court recently decided to affirm the constitutionality of the 1961 Act, and yesterday Mr Justice O'Flaherty gave the court's reasons.
The judge said the 1961 legislation provided that once a wrong, was established, the wrongdoers must take the consequences. As between defendants it was provided there could be an apportionment of blame.
The possibility that one of a number of defendants might be insolvent and unable to meet his or her liability was an unfortunate aspect of litigation.
That the risk should fall on the other solvent defendants who were concurrent wrongdoers seemed to be a solution that was in harmony with the core principles underlying civil liability.
Irish Rail brought Mr Diskin into the case but could not obtain any significant contribution from him.