Anna Kolton v Parmont Ltd Trading as Esplanade Hotel

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Garrett Simons
• Judgment Date: 08 April 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] IEHC 134
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: 2020 No. 4464 P

Between

Anna Kolton

Plaintiff

and

Parmont Ltd Trading as Esplanade Hotel

Defendant

[2022] IEHC 134

2020 No. 4464 P

THE HIGH COURT

Personal injuries – Negligence – Balance of probabilities – Plaintiff seeking damages – Whether the negligence alleged against the defendant had been established

Facts: The plaintiff, Ms Kolton, had been a guest in a hotel owned and occupied by the defendant, Parmont Ltd. The plaintiff alleged that she suffered a significant burn or scald injury as the result of an electric kettle in her hotel bedroom “exploding” during use and spraying her with boiling water. The claim of negligence pursued at trial had been that the defendant had failed to put in place a system to ensure that the electric kettles in the hotel rooms were properly checked and maintained. The claim had been that, as a result of this omission, a build-up of limescale on the filter of the kettle in the plaintiff’s hotel room had gone undetected and this had caused the kettle to explode in the manner described by the plaintiff and her former boyfriend.

Held by the High Court (Simons J) that, having regard to the expert evidence, on the balance of probabilities, the negligence alleged against the defendant had not been established; in particular, the plaintiff had established neither that the filter in the electric kettle had been clogged nor that a clogged filter would have resulted in an explosion of the type alleged. Simons J found the plaintiff’s former boyfriend to be an unreliable witness, prone to exaggeration; his evidence was inconsistent with any plausible version of events. Simons J noted that the plaintiff herself had been unable to give much direct evidence in respect of the mechanics of the accident. Simons J held that it was sufficient to dispose of the proceedings for the court to find that the negligence alleged by the plaintiff had not been established on the balance of probabilities.

Simons J, in the absence of the negligence alleged having been established, held that the proceedings would be dismissed. Simons J held that if the default position under Part 11 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 were to obtain in this case, then the defendant would be entitled to an order for costs as against the plaintiff.

Proceedings dismissed.

Appearances

Barney Quirke, SC and Esther Earley for the Plaintiff instructed by O'Brien Murphy (Arran Quay)

Jonathan Kilfeather, SC and William Reidy for the Defendant instructed by Kennedys (Sir John Rogersons Quay)

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Garrett Simons delivered on 8 April 2022

INTRODUCTION

1 This judgment is delivered in respect of a personal injuries action. The Plaintiff had been a guest in a hotel owned and occupied by the Defendant. The Plaintiff alleges that she suffered a significant burn or scald injury as the result of an electric kettle in her hotel bedroom “ exploding” during use and spraying her with boiling water.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ACCIDENT

2 The Plaintiff and her then boyfriend had checked-in to the Esplanade Hotel on 22 July 2019 for a one-night stay. Some members of the Plaintiff's family, who were visiting from Poland, had checked-in to a separate room in the hotel.

3 The layout of the hotel room is such that the entrance door opens into a short, narrow corridor, with a bathroom on the righthand side. The corridor then widens into the bedroom area. There is a shelving unit located in the corridor, upon which an electric kettle, tea cups, and milk and sugar had been provided. On the opposite wall of the corridor there is a mirror mounted on the wall. The distance between the end of the shelving unit and the mirror has been measured at approximately 1.4 metres.

4 The Plaintiff gave evidence that she and her boyfriend had first entered the hotel room between 2.30 pm and 3.00 pm. Thereafter, at approximately 5.00 pm, the Plaintiff had used the electric kettle in the hotel room to prepare a hot drink. The Plaintiff confirmed that, on that occasion, she had no issues or problems using the electric kettle.

5 The Plaintiff, her boyfriend and visiting family members left the hotel for the evening to socialise in a local public house. The Plaintiff and her boyfriend returned to their hotel room shortly before midnight.

6 The Plaintiff has explained that she decided to use the electric kettle to make a hot drink for herself. The Plaintiff's evidence is that she half-filled the kettle with water from the bathroom tap; closed the lid of the kettle; placed the kettle on its electric base; and switched it on.

7 While waiting for the electric kettle to boil, the Plaintiff had been trying on a skirt which she had, seemingly, purchased earlier in the day. The Plaintiff had been standing in front of the mirror for this purpose, with her back to the shelving unit which housed the electric kettle. The Plaintiff estimates that she had been standing approximately 1.5 metres from the mirror. The Plaintiff's boyfriend had been sitting up on the left-hand side of the double bed, watching the Plaintiff trying on the new skirt. His evidence is that both the Plaintiff and the electric kettle were in his “ field of vision”.

8 The Plaintiff avers that there was then a sudden loud noise, which she likened to an “ explosion” or “ gunshot”, and that she felt a burning sensation, mainly on her upper and middle back and her neck. The Plaintiff says that she had asked her boyfriend “ What happened?”.

9 The Plaintiff's boyfriend has described the incident as follows. There was a “ loud” and “ frightening” noise and an “ explosion”. The lid of the electric kettle opened fully, and water burst out like a “ geyser”. The witness described the lid of the electric kettle as having flipped right back, turning 180 degrees. The witness also demonstrated this angle by using his hands. There was water on the wall, ceiling and the entirety of the shelving unit. The witness estimated that eighty per cent of a notional rectangle the width of the shelving unit and the height of the wall above was covered in water. There were drops of water dripping from the ceiling for more than thirty minutes after the incident. The floor was not, however, very wet.

10 The witness confirmed that the electric kettle had not been boiling for very long before the supposed “ explosion”. As the witness put it, it was the “ standard time” and there was nothing “ suspicious” or “ concerning” about the length of time for which the kettle had been operational.

11 The witness also produced a number of photographs taken on his mobile telephone device. These indicate that the injuries to the Plaintiff's back were confined to an area running from her left shoulder to above her waistline. The width of the affected area is no more than one-third of the breadth of her back. As discussed presently, this is of relevance in analysing the possible mechanics of the accident.

12 There are a number of photographs of the hotel room in the aftermath of the accident. These are of little assistance, however, in that they are of poor quality and it is difficult to make out any detail in same.

13 The Plaintiff's injuries were immediately treated with cold water and wet towels. The Plaintiff's boyfriend is qualified in first-aid and his prompt actions in attending to her greatly mitigated the injuries suffered. A burns gel was then obtained from a hotel porter and applied to the scalded area.

14 The Plaintiff and her boyfriend checked-out of the hotel, as scheduled, the following morning (23 July 2019). On the afternoon of the same day, the Plaintiff attended at her general practitioner's clinic in Carlow. Her injury was treated conservatively with burn shield gel and the Plaintiff had been advised to use Flamazine cream as a dressing for the following days. The Plaintiff explained in evidence that she had applied a dressing for two to three days after the incident.

15 The Plaintiff had been able to travel to Poland, some four days later, for a planned holiday. The Plaintiff did not have to take time off work on account of her injury. The Plaintiff explained that she returned to work two or three weeks later upon the conclusion of her scheduled annual leave.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

16 The Plaintiff instituted these proceedings on 23 June 2020. The fact that the proceedings were instituted before the High Court, rather than the Circuit Court, implies that the Plaintiff considers that the monetary value of her claim is in excess of €60,000. This claim is in respect of general damages: there is no claim for loss of earnings and there are no significant special damages.

17 A full defence has been delivered to the proceedings, which includes a plea of contributory negligence against the Plaintiff. The Defendant also issued a letter warning that a differential costs order would be sought if the Plaintiff was successful.

18 The following particulars of personal injury are pleaded in the personal injuries summons:

“The Plaintiff suffered a significant burn/scald injury to her left shoulder and left upper and middle back.

The Plaintiff attended her GP where her burns were treated. The Plaintiff had significant pain and discomfort over the affected area.

The Plaintiff has been left with a permanent, discoloured area measuring 200 mm by 60 mm, which represents a significant cosmetic deformity and which the Plaintiff is very self conscious of.

The prognosis remains guarded and the Plaintiff reserves the right to adduce further particulars.”

19 The Plaintiff subsequently delivered the following further and better particulars of personal injury on 28 February 2022, that is, a few days prior to the hearing of the personal injuries action:

“The Plaintiff has been left with a discoloured area on her left upper back, which represents a cosmetic deformity and which said area is itchy and drier than the surrounding skin.

In cold weather this skin contracts and feels...