Donnelly v Dunnes Stores

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Twomey
• Judgment Date: 08 May 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IEHC 347
• Docket Number: [2015 No. 617 C.A.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 08 May 2019

[2019] IEHC 347

THE HIGH COURT

CIRCUIT APPEAL

Twomey J.

[2015 No. 617 C.A.]

BETWEEN

CORINNE DONNELLY

PLAINTIFF

AND

DUNNES STORES

DEFENDANT

Negligence – Liability – Damages – Plaintiff seeking damages – Whether the defendant was liable

Facts: The plaintiff, Ms Donnelly, of Shannonbanks, Corbally, County Limerick, was injured putting her hand into a cardboard box to take t-shirts out of that box and put them on a shelf in the premises of the defendant, Dunnes Stores, as part of her employment with that company. She leaned too close to the box and her eye came into contact with the corner of the flap of the box. She received bruising to her cornea which necessitated her attending hospital as an outpatient, but her eye was, for all intents and purposes, fully recovered within a week. She sought to place legal responsibility for the accident on her employer by claiming that it was the pressure of work, due to understaffing and her being overworked at Dunnes Stores, which caused her inadvertence and therefore was the 'legal cause' of the accident. On that basis, she sought damages from Dunnes Stores and she was awarded general damages of €19,000 for pain and suffering in the Circuit Court, with approximately €12,000 in out-of-pocket expenses/special damages, a total of approximately €31,000.

Held by the High Court (Twomey J) that it had not been convinced, on the evidence, that Ms Donnelly was under such pressure and stress at work that, on the balance of probabilities, this was the legal cause of her accident. Twomey J held that a bald assertion by a plaintiff that she felt under pressure at work followed by an assumption by her expert engineer of negligence/breach of duty was not sufficient to support a claim for damages. Twomey J held that even if Ms Donnelly subjectively felt under time pressure on the day in question, the taking of t-shirts out of a cardboard box was the most mundane of tasks; it did not involve heavy weights, complex machinery or sharp instruments and common-sense dictated that her inadvertence in doing this task, even if she was doing it quickly, was her own fault.

Twomey J held that the Circuit Court should not have made an order for the part-payment of the award by Dunnes Stores, where the matter was under appeal on liability. Accordingly, Twomey J, as well as dismissing the plaintiff’s claim, concluded that the Circuit Court should not have ordered the payment by Dunnes Stores of €20,000, out of the €31,385 award, to Ms Donnelly.

Claim dismissed.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Twomey delivered on the 8th day of May, 2019

Is employer liable for employee injured putting hand into a cardboard box?

1 This is a case where the plaintiff/respondent (‘Ms. Donnelly’), of Shannonbanks, Corbally, County Limerick, was injured putting her hand into a cardboard box to take t-shirts out of that box and putting them on a shelf in the premises of the defendant/appellant (‘Dunnes Stores’), as part of her employment with that company. She lent too close to the box and her eye came into “ inadvertent contact” (to quote her engineer) with the corner of the flap of the cardboard box. She received bruising to her cornea which necessitated her attending hospital as an outpatient, but thankfully, her eye was, for all intents and purposes, fully recovered within a week.

2 The cardboard box was a standard cardboard box familiar to most people in this country. Putting one's hands into a cardboard box to retrieve an item is a very uncomplicated task and is a task that is performed daily without incident in homes, schools and workplaces throughout this country. Indeed, in her evidence to this Court, Ms. Donnelly accepted that she herself had unpacked thousands of boxes during her 13-year career with Dunnes Stores in Harvey's Quay, Limerick, without incident. However, she blames her employer, Dunnes Stores, for the bruising which occurred to her eye on this occasion.

3 If this accident had happened at home, it is likely that it would be regarded as an unfortunate accident arising from Ms. Donnelly's lack of attention to her task because she was rushing or otherwise pre-occupied. Indeed, in such a scenario, Ms. Donnelly might have blamed herself for the accident.

4 However, because the accident occurred in the workplace, Ms. Donnelly seeks to place legal responsibility for this accident on her employer. She seeks to do so by claiming that it was the pressure of work, due to understaffing and her being overworked at Dunnes Stores, which caused her inadvertence and therefore was the “legal cause” of the accident. On this basis, she seeks damages from Dunnes Stores and she was awarded general damages of €19,000 for pain and suffering in the Circuit Court, with approximately €12,000 in out-of-pocket expenses/special damages, a total of approximately €31,000.

Expert engineer report on taking t-shirts out of cardboard box

5 While it may seem somewhat surreal to a layperson, in order to substantiate her claim for damages, Ms. Donnelly adduced “expert” evidence from a civil engineer on the taking of t-shirts out of a cardboard box and the duties of an employer to an employee in this regard, on the basis presumably that civil engineers are experts in this area.

Common sense principles applicable to manner in which injury incurred

6 However, it is clear from the Court of Appeal decision in Byrne v. Ardenheath [2017] IECA 293, which binds this Court, that when the High Court, Circuit Court or District Court is dealing with alleged negligence in a field of activity which is not complex or specialist, and in this Court's view taking t-shirts out of a cardboard box is the epitome of an activity which is not complex, the Court is obliged to bring ordinary common sense to bear on what amounts to the exercise of reasonable care by a plaintiff/defendant. In doing so, it seems clear that this Court can give precedence to common sense over alleged “expert” evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff on alleged breaches of duty.

7 While the Ardenheath case was not an employer's liability case, as in Ms. Donnelly's claim, it is nonetheless this Court's view that this common-sense principle is equally applicable to cases regarding employees who are injured at work as a result of the alleged negligence/breach of duty of their employers, as it is to an occupier's liability case such as in Ardenheath in which a claim, by a person who slipped when walking on a wet grassy bank in unsuitable footwear, was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

Caution when dealing with “expert” reports paid for by one of the parties

8 In addition to applying common sense to expert opinions on matters which are non-technical and non-specialised, it is also the case that this Court must apply some caution to expert opinions where the expert is retained by a plaintiff/defendant with a financial interest in obtaining a report in their favour, since the expert's view will, inter alia, be informed by the facts which are provided by the party retaining them. This is because, although experts are supposed to be completely independent and owe a duty to the Court, more often than not, expert opinions will correspond favourably with the interests of the paying client. As noted by...