Boyle v Iarnród Éireann
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 30 January 2006 |
| Date | 30 January 2006 |
| Docket Number | RECORD NO. 644/04 |
| Court | Circuit Court |
AN CHUIRT CHUARDA
(THE CIRCUIT COURT)
RECORD NO. 644/04
Negligence - Liability - Causation - Standard of care - Whether defendant liable for plaintiff’s injuries - Whether defendant taking sufficient care to avoid injuries of the type suffered - Whether defendant meeting sufficient standard of care
Facts: the plaintiff sought damages for pain and suffering caused by a needle prick injury to her hand from a syringe needle left on the defendant’s train seat. The defendant gave evidence that a thorough cleaning and inspection operation had been undertaken shortly before the plaintiff boarded the train and that the needle had not been present then and that it must have been left there by a third party shortly after the inspection had been undertaken. The defendant also gave evidence that there had only been three prior incidents involving needle prick injuries from syringes left on its trains in the past thirty years.
Held by Mr Justice McMahon in dismissing the claim that the defendant’s cleaning system was adequate and that it had been applied on the day in question. Furthermore, there were no special circumstances or danger known to the defendant that would have required greater care. Accordingly, the defendant was not liable for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff due to any negligence on its part.
Reporter: P.C.
Judgment of His Honour Judge Bryan McMahon delivered on the 30th January, 2006.
On Sunday the 9th of June, 2002 in the early afternoon, the infant plaintiff, who was three and half years of age at the time, boarded the defendant's train with her father. When climbing into her seat, the plaintiff's left hand was pierced by a used hypodermic syringe and her right hand was scraped by the needle. The incident was brought to the attention of the train conductor who took possession of the needle. When the plaintiff arrived at her destination at Wexford, she was brought directly to Wexford General Hospital. When the hypodermic needle was eventually recovered, it was established that it had been used for non-medical purposes and it appeared that there was real risk that the needle may have been contaminated. The plaintiff received a hepatitis B vaccine on the day and three additional vaccines over the following months. Her blood was monitored for some months. The uncertainty surrounding the plaintiff s condition caused her much distress and anxiety and her school friends had to be warned of the possibility of hepatitis and HIV infection. It
was claimed that during this period of ostrasisation the plaintiff suffered psychological trauma as a result.
On the day in question the plaintiff’s father got into the carriage at Bray Station. The carriage was not very full and he had a choice of seats. He selected a seat with a table which looked clean. As it was a Sunday the carriage was not very full. He placed the child on the seat and turned around to put some bags on the luggage rack when he heard a small yelp from the child. When he looked again he saw a needle wedged between the seat and the back rest and sticking out at 45 degree angle.
The father immediately went looking for the guard and explained what had happened and showed the guard the needle. The guard took possession of the needle and apparently gave it to the cleaners when the train arrived in Wexford. The cleaners apparently dumped the needle into a rubbish bin and it was only through some effort by the plaintiff's mother that it was subsequently retrieved and subjected to medical analysis. The mother who worked in a hospital had been told by the hospital personnel that it would be important to get the needle if possible and this she did by some commendable initiatives.
The question for the court to determine is whether the defendants should be held liable for the plaintiff’s injury in these circumstances.
Under the Occupiers Liability Act, 1995, the duty on the defendant is to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that a visitor does not suffer injury or damage by reason of any...
To continue reading
Request your trial