Vega v Cullen

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Peart
• Judgment Date: 09 November 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] IEHC 362
• Docket Number: Record Number:No. 7251P/2003
• Court: High Court
• Date: 09 November 2005

[2005] IEHC 362

THE HIGH COURT

Record Number:No. 7251P/2003

Vega v Cullen

Between:

Juan Vega

Plaintiff

And

Kieran Cullen

Defendant

OCCUPIERS LIABILITY ACT 1995

NEGLIGENCE

Occupier's liability

Duty of care - Visitor - Personal injuries - Common law duty or care - Statutory duty of care - Contributory negligence - Occupiers Liability Act 1995 (No10) - Award of damages of €55,400 reduced by 30% by reason of contributory negligence - (2003/7251P - Peart J - 9/11/2005) [2005] IEHC 362

Vega v Cullen

Judgment of

Mr Justice Peart

1 I will not set out in detail all the evidence which I have heard, since my conclusions are easily reached and understood.

2 I am satisfied that the plaintiff was present on the defendant's property as a social guest. As such he owed him what is sometimes described as a common duty of care. That duty is to take reasonable care to ensure that the plaintiff did not suffer injury on his premises.

3 In addition he was under a statutory duty to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the visitor to his premises does not suffer injury or damage by reason of any danger thereon.

4 There is no meaningful distinction to be drawn between the common law duty of care and the statutory duty of care under the Occupiers” Liability Act,1995.

5 The defendant was carrying out some repairs to a roof on his house and for that purpose had, for access purposes to the roof, left a ladder leaning against the wall of the building in question, but at an angle of 45 degrees, which an expert has opined was an excessive angle from a safety point of view.

6 In addition this ladder was standing unevenly on the ground, in as much as one foot of the ladder was on a concrete surface at the side of the house and the other leg was on a gravel and earth surface which was slightly lower than the concrete surface. This created some instability, and Mr Baynes, the plaintiff's engineer has stated that this ladder was unstable as a result of these two features.

7 Without going into the evidence in any further detail I am satisfied that this ladder as it stood against the wall of the house in question was dangerous if any person was to climb it. As it happens the plaintiff, an adult man of about 55 years of age at the time, ascended the ladder in order to have a conversation with the defendant who was on his roof. As he began to descend the ladder he says that the ladder moved to the right causing the plaintiff to fall to the ground. Mr Baynes said he was satisfied that the angle at which the ladder was leaning against the wall and the unstable way in which the feet of the ladder were on the ground could lead to the ladder moving to the right or to the left. I am satisfied therefore that the...