O'Grady v Abbott Ireland
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Eileen Creedon |
| Judgment Date | 11 February 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IEHC 79 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [2015 No. 8433 P] |
| Date | 11 February 2019 |
[2019] IEHC 79
THE HIGH COURT
Creedon J.
[2015 No. 8433 P]
Personal injuries – Damages – Negligence – Plaintiff seeking damages in respect of serious personal injuries, loss, inconvenience and expense – Whether the defendant was negligent
Facts: The plaintiff, Ms O’Grady, commenced proceedings by way of personal injury summons in which she made a claim for damages in respect of serious personal injuries, loss, inconvenience and expense incurred as a result of the negligence, breach of duty including breach of statutory duty under the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, the General Application Regulations made thereunder, the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 and contract on behalf of the defendant, Abbott Ireland, its servants or agents. At all material times the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant. She said it was an express and/or implied term of the contract of employment between the plaintiff and the defendant that she would be provided with a safe place and system of work. She said that on or about the 24th July 2014, she was carrying out her duties pursuant to her contract of employment with the defendant at the defendant’s factory premises known as Abbott Ireland Vascular Division, Cashel Road, Clonmel, County Tipperary, when she stepped into a lift, the door of the lift struck her on the head and as a result she suffered serious personal injuries, loss, damages, inconvenience and expense. The plaintiff said that in the circumstances the defendant failed to provide her with a safe place and/or system of work. She said that the lift did not emit a verbal warning that the doors were closing and/or otherwise warn a user that the doors were closing. Further, she said the doors themselves were an excessive width and a danger to users. She said the sensors of the lift were not properly placed and/or did not function correctly.
Held by Creedon J that, having considered the law and facts in this case, she was satisfied that the incident was caused by inadvertence on the part of the plaintiff for which she must bear responsibility.
Creedon J held that the plaintiff’s claim would be dismissed.
Claim dismissed.
These proceedings were commenced by way of personal injury summons by the plaintiff in which she makes a claim for damages in respect of serious personal injuries, loss, inconvenience and expense incurred as a result of the negligence, breach of duty including breach of statutory duty under the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, the General Application Regulations made thereunder, the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 and contract on behalf of the defendant its servants or agents.
At all material times the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant. She says it was an express and/or implied term of the contract of employment between the plaintiff and the defendant that the plaintiff would be provided with a safe place and system of work. In particular, she says that on or about the 24th day of July 2014, the plaintiff was carrying out her duties pursuant to her contract of employment with the defendant at the defendant's factory premises known as Abbott Ireland Vascular Division, Cashel Road, Clonmel, in the County of Tipperary, when the plaintiff stepped into a lift, the door of the lift struck the plaintiff on the head and as a result the plaintiff suffered serious personal injuries, loss, damages, inconvenience and expense.
The plaintiff says that in the circumstances the defendant failed to provide the plaintiff with a safe place and/or system of work. She says that the lift which is the subject matter of these proceedings, did not emit a verbal warning that the doors were closing and/or otherwise warn a user that the doors were closing. Further, she says the doors themselves were an excessive width and a danger to users. She says the sensors of the lift were not properly placed and/or did not function correctly. The plaintiff sets out further and better particulars of the injuries occasioned by the alleged wrong of the defendant at para. 5 of the personal injury summons.
She confirms inter alia that she sustained a haematoma to the right temporal area of her head. An MRI scan did not identify any bony injury to her skull. Post – incident she had tenderness over the right temporal area but no swelling. The plaintiff indicates that she has suffered post – concussion syndrome together with post-traumatic stress disorder. She says that her sleep continues to be disturbed and she suffers from flashbacks. The plaintiff's general practitioner has prescribed antidepressant medication. The plaintiff had to take time off work and has been advised to undergo cognitive behaviour therapy.
The plaintiff gave evidence on her own behalf. She confirmed that she is the quality control lead coordinator with Abbott Ireland Ltd. She confirmed that that role involves the scheduling and coordinating of a group of quality control staff members to support with testing and audits of the product for Abbott Ireland in the DES segment of the business, that is to say the Drug Eluting Stent segment of their business in Clonmel. She said that she has a team of people that work with her and that she coordinates the quality control support in various areas on the site in Clonmel for both audits on the process and checking that the product is made to specification. She referred to the events the subject matter of this claim which occurred on Thursday the 24th July 2014. She said that at that time she had the same job, that she was a quality control lead coordinator. She confirmed that there had been a slight expansion in her duties due to significant numbers of redundancies the previous year. She confirmed that she was on the evening shift that day. The shift would run from the hours of 4:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. She said that she was due to go on two week's holidays the following day. She confirmed that the incident occurred in what she described as ‘the secondary pack area’. She said that this is the area where the product has gone to the steriliser and is coming back for another packing which is referred to as the secondary pack, to get it ready to send out to the customer.
She said this is an area of the factory that she took over responsibility for as quality lead the year before but that it would not be an area that she would frequent. She said that she would mainly communicate with that area by email or telephone. She said that she normally worked in the DES suites, the production suite, where her desk would be located. With regard to the secondary pack area, she indicated that she would go down there about once a month but that she would not go there as part of her day to day duties.
She confirmed that on the evening of the 24th July 2014, she went down tto the secondary pack area to have a conversation with a Mr. Jim Roche. She indicated that Mr. Roche was to take over as acting lead coordinator for the two weeks that she was going to be on annual leave. She indicated that she went down there at about half past 8 in the evening. She described two lifts that she was used to using, one which she described as a people lift, which opened from the middle and had voiceover warnings, and the second another freight lift which went down to the criblet area which opened to one side and again had voice over warnings. Ms. O'Grady indicated that she went down to the secondary pack area on the evening in question to speak with Mr. Roche and she was taken through a set of photographs to identify that area when giving her evidence. She described how she had a conversation with Mr. Roche and as they were concluding their discussion they were walking along the corridor. She said that Mr. Jim Roche was continuing into the warehouse and that she continued to the lift to go back up to her work area.
She indicated that she pressed the button which was on the left hand side of the lift, and the door opened. She said that she then turned back to make a final comment in the conversation to Mr. Roche. She said that she then went to walk into the lift and at that stage she said that unknown to her the door had started to close. She said therefore that when she went to go into the lift, the door struck her on the side of the head. She said it struck her on the temple area of the right side of her head. She said that the door struck her with its leading edge as she was entering the lift. She identified the area in question by reference to photographs. When asked what type of contact it made with her head she indicated that it was a very strong contact when it banged off her head. She said the door struck her head and then the door went back into the open position.
She said that after the impact she continued on up onto the next floor and described what happened at that point to include the medical attention that she received. She described the lump on her head and the headaches that she experienced the following morning. On Monday she went to work at 2:30pm but was asked to just simply write a short report on the accident and to go home and commence her holidays. She described the fear she had about taking her flight on her holidays because she was concerned about blood clots. She saw the company doctor, who reassured her, and she proceeded to go on holiday.
She indicated that the holiday was not a success due to ongoing headaches and the bruising to her face. She went on to describe her condition upon her return to work which included headaches and loss of concentration. She stated that the headaches persisted for three months. She stated the bruising lasted for about three weeks and the lump for about six weeks. She further indicated that sleeping became a big problem for her and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial