Duggan v Armstrong

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judge: McCarthy J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1993
• Neutral Citation: 1992 WJSC-SC 1973
• Docket Number: [S.C. No. 97 of 1990]
• Date: 01 January 1993

1992 WJSC-SC 1973

THE SUPREME COURT

Hederman J.

McCarthy J.

Costello J.

97/90

DUGGAN v. ARMSTRONG

MICHELLE DUGGAN

PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

AND

VINCENT ARMSTRONG AND WILLIAM TIGHE

DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

Citations:

KAVANAGH V STOKES 1942 IR 596

HOTEL PROPRIETORS ACT 1963 S4

BENNETT & ANOR V WALSH 70 ILTR 252

Synopsis:

AGENCY

Agent

Knowledge - Animal - Viciousness - Principal - Liability - Knowledge imputed to principal - (97/90 - Supreme Court - 26/6/92)

|Duggan v. Armstrong|

ANIMALS

Owner

Control - Absence - DOg - Attack - Child injured - Vicious propensity - Scienter - Son's knowledge imputed to parent owner - (97/90 - Supreme Court - 26/2/92)

|Duggan v. Armstrong|

HOTEL

Proprietor

Duty - Guest - Safety - Dog - Attack - Child injured - Vicious propensity - Scienter - Son's knowledge imputed to parent owner - (97/90 - Supreme Court - 26/6/92)

|Duggan v. Armstrong|

NEGLIGENCE

Hotelier

Guest - Safety - Girl - Dog - Attack - Personal injuries - Vicious propensity of animal - proof of scienter - Manager's knowledge imputed to proprieter - (97/90 - Supreme Court - 26/6/92)

|Duggan v. Armstrong|

1 Judgment of McCarthy J.delivered the 26th day of June, 1992. [NEMDISS]

2 The Plaintiff was born on the 8th December 1976 and on the 21st April 1984 was on holiday with her family for the Easter weekend at Redcastle, Co. Donegal. On that date, a Saturday, she was in the foyer of the hotel when she was attacked by a mongrel alsatian dog. She had gone to thehotelwith other children, including her cousins with whom she was staying, to use the leisure facilities.

3 With her father as next friend she sued the owner of the hotel, the first Defendant, (Mr. Armstrong) and the manager, the second Defendant, (Mr. Tighe) alleging negligence and breach of duty (including breach of statutory duty), both in and about the management and maintenance of the hotel and the keeping and training of the dog. She alleged that on that date and on other dates the dog exhibited a mischievous and/or a vicious propensity a fact of which both Defendants knew or ought to have known. All the allegations were put in issue in a joint defence filed on behalf of both Defendants; the action was tried in the High Court before Egan J. and at the conclusion of the evidence called on behalf of the Plaintiff he acceded to an application for a non-suit on behalf of both Defendants. The Plaintiff appeals and has argued the same three bases of claim as put forward in the High Court:-

4 (1) That there was, in particular from the testimony of Jalisco Shortt, the Plaintiff's cousin, evidence of a vicious propensity on the part of the dog.

5 (2) That, as in the case of Kavanagh .v. Stokes (1942 IR) the Defendant occupier had failed to provide reasonably safe premises.

6 (3) That in breach of Section 4 of the Hotel Proprietors Act 1963, the first Defendant as proprietor of the hotel had failed to take reasonable care of the person of the guest (the Plaintiff) and to ensure that, for the purpose of personal use by the guest, the...