Foley v Musgrave Cash & Carry Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: GRIFFIN J.
• Judgment Date: 20 December 1985
• Neutral Citation: 1985 WJSC-SC 2145
• Docket Number: 143/84
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 20 December 1985

1985 WJSC-SC 2145

THE SUPREME COURT

Finlay C.J.

Griffin J.

McCarthy J.

143/84

FOLEY v. MUSGRAVE CASH & CARRY LTD

ELLEN FOLEY

v.

MUSGRAVE CASH AND CARRY LIMITED

Citations:

DONOGHUE V STEVENSON 1932 AC 862

MORELY V EYE EAR & THROAT HOSPITAL INC 1967 IR 143

MURPHY V ROCHES STORES UNREP SUPREME 1977

O'DONOGHUE V GREENE 1967 IR 40

PURTILL V ATHLONE UDC 1968 IR 205

WARD V TESCO 1976 1 AER 219

Synopsis:

DAMAGES

Assessment

Personal injuries - Wrist - Fracture - Woman aged 58 years - Jury award of #16,000 for past pain - #12,000 awarded for future pain - Awards reduced to #7,000 and #5,000 - (143/84 - Supreme Court - 20/12/85)

|Foley v. Musgrave Cash & Carry|

NEGLIGENCE

Occupier

Warehouse - Invitor - Duty of care - Reasonable precautions for safety of invitee - Retailer invitee - Inspection of goods - Retailer tripping over unattended low trolley - Fractured wrist - No system for removing unattended trolleys - Apportionment of fault - Jury awarding 65% of fault to occupier - Jury awarding #16,000 for past pain and #12,000 for future pain - Jury's findings on liability and apportionment unobjectionable - General damages reduced to #7,000 and #5,000 - Appellate court reviewing findings in light of entire evidence adduced at trial - (143/84 - Supreme Court - 20/12/85).

|Foley v. Musgrave Cash & Carry|

SUPREME COURT

Appeal

Jury findings - Review - Defendant held negligent - Trial judge refusing to grant directions at close of each party's evidence - Appellate court reviewing findings in light of entire evidence adduced - (143/84 - Supreme Court - 20/12/85).

|Foley v. Musgrave Cash & Carry|

GRIFFIN J.

1 In 1976 the plaintiff and her husband carried on the business of a grocery and public house at Cappoquin in the County waterford. The defendants were the owners and occupiers of a wholesale warehouse or supermarket at Kinsale Road, Cork. Access to the defendants' premises is confined to such retailers and other customers as are in possession of a customer's card issued by the defendants. The plaintiff was the holder of such a card, and on the 13th of December 1976 she went to the defendants' premises for the purpose of the purchase of two cases of sherry. The premises are very large, and the goods displayed there are stacked on shelves throughout, the building. There are main aisles, approxiinately 12' wide, betweent each two rows of shelves, and side bays approximately 8' wide - the lay- out is similar to that in common use in retail supermarkets but on a much larger scale. The different departments are indicated by signs which vary in height from 9' to 15' above floor level.

2 As the nature of the business involves purchases in large quantities, trolleys are provided by the defendants for the; use of customers. In 1976 there were between 200 and 250 such trolleys in use on the premises. The trolleys have four small wheels, approximately 4" to 5" in diameter, and consist of a platform made of timber planks approximately 5“ to 6” long and 2“6“ wide, 8" high at the front and 10" to 11" high at the rear. This platform is open on the front and on both sices. At the rear there is a handle approximately 4'high, and from a cross bar on the handle a wire basket is hung, presumably for use with smaller or lighter goods.

3 The trolleys are kept in what is called the trolley bay, which is reached after the customer passes through the reception area having shown the customer's card at the reception desk. When a customer has collected the goods he wished to purchase and puts them on a trolley, he goes to the cash desk, pays for them and takes them on the trolley to the car park for loading onto a car or van as the case may be. Trolley boys are employed by the defendants for the purpose of collecting the trolleys in the car park and bringing them back to the trolley bay for further use of customers. Trolley boys are not employed inside the supermarket for the purpose of collecting trolleys which are from time to time left by customers in the main aisles or the side bays.

4 The plaintiff was looking for the sign for the Wine and Spirit department, and while she was walking along one of the main aisles close to the junction of that aisle with one of the side bays, she fell over the front portion of a trolley which was stationary and unattended in the side bay, with approximately 2' to 2½' of the front portion projecting into the aisle on which she was walking, and she suffered injuries. In evidence she said that the premises were fairly crowded at the time and that she was carrying her handbag in one hand and a box of biscuits in the other and that she had not yet taken a...