Thomas v Leitrim County Council

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date01 January 1998
Neutral Citation[1997] IEHC 189
Date01 January 1998
Docket NumberNO. 7395p/1997
CourtHigh Court
THOMAS v. LEITRIM COUNTY COUNCIL

BETWEEN

ANN THOMAS
PLAINTIFF

AND

THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF LEITRIM
DEFENDANT

[1997] IEHC 189

NO. 7395p/1997

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis

Negligence

Occupiers" liability; apportionment of fault; local natural amenity developed by defendant; visiting plaintiff injured avoiding tree blocking path; whether defendant owed duty to plaintiff as licensee or invitee; whether defendants have material interest in tourists visiting area; whether reasonable care taken to inspect and maintain amenity; whether plaintiff took reasonable care for her own safety Held: Defendant's duty to take reasonable care that premises reasonably safe for plaintiff invitee breached; plaintiff two thirds contributorily negligent (High Court: McCracken J. 19/12/1997)

Thomas v. Leitrim County Council

[1998] 2 ILRM 74

Citations:

ROONEY V CONNOLLY 1987 ILRM 768

OCCUPIERS LIABILITY ACT 1995

SUTTON V BOOTLE CORPORATION 1947 1 KB 359

FOLEY V MUSGRAVE CASH & CARRY LTD UNREP SUPREME 20.12.1985 1985/8/2145

INDERMAUR V DAMES LR 1 CP 274

1

19thday of December, 1997

2

It has been agreed between the parties that I should determine the issue of liability in this case as a preliminary issue. This seems to me to be a very sensible approach. As I understand that the issue of damages would involve considerable expert evidence, including the bringing of accountants from the United Kingdom.

3

The facts in these proceedings are not really in dispute. The plaintiff, her husband and three friends , all of whom were involved in the hobby of ballooning, were attending a hot air balloon festival in Sligo. The Plaintiff and her husband live near Weston in Devonshire and travelled over by car bringing their own balloon equipment with them. Certain events in the festival were due to take place on 1st May, 1995, but because of strong winds they had to be cancelled, and the plaintiff, her husband and freinds took the opportunity to go sightseeing. They read about Glencar Waterfall in Co.Leitrim in the Michelin Guide, and decided to visit it

4

The area around Glencar Waterfall was purchased by the Defendants in 1986 for developments as a tourist amenity. They erected a car park and toilet block at the mainroad adjacent to the waterfall, and they renewed pathways leading up to the top of the waterfall. The pathway consisted of stone slabs 4ft. in width. It led from the road up the side of the waterfall to a viewing platform at the top of the waterfall. The pathway then continued at a sharp angle to the left and rose to its highest point at what is called the summit. From there the pathway descended again quite steeply by way of steps, turned to the left and rejoined the original pathway thus creating a loop, which was in the shape of a triangle. It was, of course, possible for visitors simply to go straight up the path as far as the viewing platform and return the same way, in other words it was not a one way system.

5

The Defendants employed a local lady as a part-time caretaker, but her functions were limited to ensuring that the toilet block was properly kept and that there were no problems in the car parking area. She had no responsibility for the pathway up to the top of the waterfall. There was also no system of regular inspections of this area by the Defendants, and evidence was given by Mr. Jarlath Conroy, the engineer responsible for roads and amenities, that he had visited the site on 6th April, 1995, but there was no evidence of any visits on behalf of the Defendants between that date and the accident.

6

When the Plaintiff and her friends visited the site on 1st May, 1995 they walked up the path to the top of the waterfall and then continued around the loop to the summit and descended back down again on the loop pathway. Towards the bottom of the steep part of that pathway they encountered a tree fallen across the path, completely blocking it, To the right of the path where the tree had fallen was a row of trees, and it would have been quite impossible to pass on that side. To the left hand side of the path there was a very steep bank leading downwards towards the bottom of the path on the road. This bank had been grassed, but it is quite clear both from the evidence given and the photographs furnished that it had been used as a shortcut to some considerable degree, and in fact there were twodistinct bare tracks on it, one on each side of a tree stump. These tracks showed a considerable amount of bare earth where the grass had been worn away.

7

The Plaintiff's party were walking in single file down the pathway when they came to the fallen tree. There does not appear to have been any discussion about what ought to be done before the various members of the party stepped off the path on to the bank at people at the front of the group, including Mr. Lucien Williams, one of the party, stepped off the path onto the bank and started to pick their way down. They all agreed that the ban was very steep, and that it was necessary to side step down the bank to keep one's balance. Mr.Williams in fact slipped shortly after stepping off the path, although he did not hurt himself, and just as he was getting up the Plaintiff stepped off the path higher up, and she slipped and unfortunately suffered serious injuries to herankle.

8

The first issue which I have to determine is whether the Defendants had any liability in respect of this accident. The Defendants submit that the Plaintiff was a mere licensee, and the only duty owed to her was not to set a trap and to warn her of concealed dangers of which the Defendants were aware. The Plaintiff, on the other hand, the argues that the old distinction between duties owed to a license and an invitee have largely disappeared and that the courts have moved away from the principles formerly applicable to licenses. In this regard they...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Thomas v Leitrim County Council
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 7 March 2001
    ...THOMAS v. LEITRIM CO COUNCIL Between: Ann Thomas Plaintiff and LEITRIM COUNTY COUNCIL Defendant Citations: THOMAS V LEITRIM CO COUNCIL 1998 2 ILRM 74 MCMAHON & BINCHY IRISH LAW OF TORTS 2ED 213 BOYLAN V DUBLIN CORPORATION 1949 IR 60 SUTTON V BOOTLE CORPORATION 1947 1 KB 359 OCCUPIERS LIABI......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT