The insistence for the High Court to reject a woman’s compensation claim for severe injuries she alleges were acquired while participating in a rugby match with her local club approximately seven years ago is growing. The lawsuit, brought forward by Carmel Creaven, implicates the Irish Rugby Football Union (IRFU), the Tuam Rugby Football Club in Galway, along with several trustees and officers of Tuam RFC. Creaven alleges negligence and duty breach from an incident that transpired through a lineout collision during a rugby match on the 8th of January, 2017.
Despite the seriousness of the claims, the defendants have outright dismissed them. In their defence, the defendants of Tuam RFC and trustees argue that since Creaven was part of an association, she doesn’t have grounds to file a lawsuit against them – arguing that she’s technically suing herself. They have requested the court to, if needed, conduct a preliminary hearing on the subject, or outright reject the case against the club and trustee culprits.
The legal representatives of Ms Creaven debate that it’s not evident that she was an affiliated club member at the accident time, to fall under the category of a member not allowed to sue oneself. This, they say, can solely be confirmed through proof, including verbal evidence.
Justice Denise Brett voiced her intentions of giving her verdict this week. Speaking on behalf of the defendants, Andrew Fitzpatrick conveyed that based on the evidence provided by Creaven, she couldn’t file a lawsuit as the accident occurred when she was a club member – an unorganised institution.
In her defence, Creaven stated that she incurred significant injury during a rugby match between Tuam and Old Belvedere. She had membership privileges for approximately five years and paid her subscription dues. She narrated that the club’s duty arose from being instructed by the coach, captain, and her teammates to partake in a lineout – an act which, as a winger, is not her ordinary task, and for which she was not prepared.
Yet, Fitzpatrick highlighted that her associations with the club made it sound like the club has an autonomous existence, which he proclaimed to be a misunderstanding, seeing that the club is, at its core, a group of individuals. Hence, as an active group member, she is not legally permitted to sue herself, described Fitzpatrick.
Eoin Carolan, representing Ms Creaven, contested the request put forth. He affirmed that the defendants accepted she had experienced serious and extensive injuries causing her to remain immobile for several days following the incident and presently requiring a crutch. Moreover, she had relinquished her aspiration of joinng the Defence Forces or police and is now reliant on disability benefits.
He mentioned that his defendants also acknowledged that she had competed against Irish international players, notwithstanding that she participated in the sport mainly for sociable and fitness purposes.
Carolan argued that the present request forwarded to the court was premised on his client’s alleged membership in the club at the moment of the incident – a claim there was never any explicit affirmation of by his client.
He highlighted that this subject cannot be resolved without substantial evidence. He emphasised their position that the club defendants had not satisfactorily met the requirements set by earlier judgments pertaining to membership matters. His point was that in situations where an individual is part of a communally binding group like a club, and by virtue of the membership terms, they are collectively liable for any misconduct attributed to a specific associate or representative of the club.