IRL High Court rules installation of a glass door which caused injury was not negligence.

Newman -v- Cogan & Anor

O’Neill J ruled that that the defendants had not failed, pursuant to s. 3 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1995, to take reasonable care in respect of the plaintiff, a visitor on the premises, to ensure that the plaintiff did not suffer injury or damage by reason of any danger existing on the premises after the plaintiff suffered the loss of an eye due to shards of glass entering her eye when a door pane was smashed.

The plaintiff sought to rely on the case of Wells v. Cooper [1958] 2 Q.B. 265, a decision of the United Kingdom Court of Appeal in which it was held as follows as revealed in the head note:-

“Held dismissing the appeal,
(1) That on either ground of action the duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff was a duty to take reasonable care for safety.

(2) That, in the case of such a trifling domestic replacement, a man of the defendant’s experience was justified in undertaking it himself.

(3) That the degree of care and skill required of a householder undertaking his own repairs was to be measured not by reference to his own degree of personal competence, but by reference to the degree of care and skill which a reasonably skilled carpenter might be expected to apply to the work in question.

(4) That, since the defendant, a reasonably competent carpenter, was doing his best to make the handles secure, he must be taken to have discharged his duty of care unless his belief that three quarter inch screws would be adequate was one which no reasonably competent carpenter would reasonably entertain, and the evidence failed to establish that.

Per curiam. The decision did not mean that the degree of skill and care required of an inviter such as the defendant was to be measured by the contractual obligations as to the quality of his work assumed by a professional carpenter working for reward, which was of a higher standard.”

The Judge ruled however, that it could not reasonably be suggested that a householder who elects to carry out a relatively simple repair, such as the replacement of a pane of glass, could be expected to be familiar with the technical standards set down in the technical guidelines associated with the Building Regulations. Thus, it could not be said that a householder, who was a reasonably competent glazier, such as the first named defendant, could not have reasonably believed that the glass chosen was suitable for this location.

O’Neill J also commented that to hold the defendant liable in negligence for installing this door pane this would be to impose upon the defendants a duty of care which would be artificial and which, in all probability, they had no real chance of discharging. Thus, in choosing this particular type of glass, which is in common usage in dwellings, it could not reasonably be said that the defendant failed in his duty as occupier of this premises, to the plaintiff, to take reasonable care to protect her from dangers on the premises.

The full judgement can be read here:

S.Major, Lacey Solicitors

De Cataldo -v- Petro Gas Group Ltd & Ors

As a result of a slip outside a petrol station, the plaintiff claimed she suffered a serious injury to her left pelvis, hip and sacrum area which had the effect of disabling her for a prolonged period of time from a variety of normal activities, namely, work for about three months, and a host of domestic activities for upwards of three years.

In respect of this latter claim, i.e. her inability to do a variety of domestic chores, she claimed that she required the assistance of a carer or nursing assistant for three years, and she submitted, in these proceedings, a claim for over €73,000 for the cost of employing three carer/nurse assistants sequentially over the time involved. She updated that claim by the provision of further particulars to include the third carer, raising the claim from approximately €69,000 to €73,490.

When the proceedings came on for hearing, this claim was abandoned, as also was the claim for €10,175 for a variety of oils and other preparations. When challenged on the making of that claim, the plaintiff’s explanation was that this claim was put in by her solicitor contrary to her instructions. In response to this evidence, Mr. Burns S.C. for the defendants, put to the plaintiff the affidavit of Mr. John Synnott, her solicitor and the exhibit therein, grounding an application by Mr. John Synnott to come off record for the plaintiff.

This affidavit and the letter exhibited paint an entirely different picture. Mr. Synnott applied to come off record because he was unwilling to continue acting for the plaintiff because of what he deposed to as the exaggeration by the plaintiff of her claims and, specifically, her claim for €73,490 for nursing assistants, and other incidences where he felt he had been misled by the plaintiff.

The Judge went on to comment that the plaintiff’s evidence was wholly unreliable, that he was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities that she had not slipped on oil and that the defendants were not guilty of negligence.

The full judgement can be read here:

S. Major, Lacey Solicitors

McDonald -v- Frossway Trading as Bleu & Ors

O’Neill J noted that anyone, lay or expert, who considered the relevant features of the location of the stairs, namely, in a busy city restaurant, in an ambiance where the lighting was relatively low, the rather dark colouring of the stairs, the absence of any clear markings on the nosings of the stairs, the normal noise, hubbub and conviviality that one would expect in a restaurant of this kind late at night, the fact that diners at that time of night would be enjoying themselves and may have consumed some alcohol and the constant movement around the restaurant of patrons and staff; these features would have brought about a realisation there was a high level of risk that a diner late at night would miss their footing on the steps and stumble.

The Court ruled that the first and second named defendants could not excuse their failure by saying they engaged an independent expert contractor when the danger posed by the absence of a handrail in this location must have been readily foreseeable to them as experienced restaurateurs. They did not need the advice or assistance of an expert to appreciate such an obvious risk.

The full judgement can be read here:

S.Major

Lacey Solicitors