Walker v Lyons

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice Bronagh O'Hanlon
• Judgment Date: 16 January 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IEHC 21
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [2008 No. 3390 P.]
• Date: 16 January 2018

[2018] IEHC 21

THE HIGH COURT

O'Hanlon J.

[2008 No. 3390 P.]

BETWEEN

LORRAINE WALKER

PLAINTIFF

AND

MICHAEL LYONS, ON BEHALF OF THE ADELAIDE AND MEATH HOSPITAL, INCOPORATING THE NATIONAL CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL

AND

ISS IRELAND LIMITED TRADING AS ISS FACILITY SERVICES

DEFENDANTS

Liability – Personal injuries – Negligence – Plaintiff seeking damages – Whether the defendants were liable for the plaintiff’s accident

Facts: The plaintiff, Ms Walker, claimed that on or about the 16th of January, 2006, when she was a patient in the hospital of the first defendant, Mr Lyons, and thus a visitor within the meaning of the Occupier’s Liability Act 1995, she walked into the pantry area of the Lynn Ward in the said hospital. Owing to the presence of a wet and highly slippery and thus dangerous floor surface, she was caused to slip and to fall heavily and was thereby occasioned severe personal injuries, loss and damage. The plaintiff’s claim was that at in or about 10 o’clock on the morning of the 16th January, 2006, she was allowed, permitted, and/or felt free to enter the said pantry area in order to obtain a drink to enable her to take some tablets. She claimed that there was no sign telling her not to enter the said pantry area, nor was there a warning to tell her that the area had just been cleaned. She claimed that the cleaning company failed to put up a yellow man or yellow sign at the locus of the accident, that she was in the hospital as an in-patient where there was a relatively relaxed atmosphere and that she had no understanding that she was not allowed to go into the said pantry area.

Held by the High Court (O'Hanlon J) that the accident was caused by her own disregard of the system in the hospital both in terms of the manner in which the hospital was managed and in the manner in which the cleaning system was carried out; she ignored all the warning signs even though she admitted that most of the time she had regard to such systems and signs. In consideration of the various submissions, it was quite clear to the Court that neither the first defendant nor the second defendant, ISS Ireland Ltd, the cleaning company employed by the first defendant, could be held liable for the accident. The system of cleaning as described by Ms Ivanova, witness for the second defendant, showed reasonable care was taken for the safety of the plaintiff and the Court believed that the second defendant carried out its duties on the occasion in question in accordance with the system of cleaning in the hospital. In terms of the hospital’s management of the situation the Court was quite clear that Ms Ivanova’s evidence of what occurred on the occasion of the accident was clear, cogent and consistent both in her direct evidence and while under cross-examination; the plaintiff on the other-hand had admitted on a number of occasions through her evidence to other parties that she could not remember the accident, that she could remember up until the accident, but not after the accident.

O'Hanlon J held that neither defendant was liable for the accident. She therefore dismissed the case brought by the plaintiff as against both defendants.

Relief refused.

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Bronagh O'Hanlon delivered on the 16th day of January, 2018

Introduction

1 The personal injuries summons is dated 28th April, 2008. Pursuant to s. 17 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act of 2003, authorisation was granted to the plaintiff dated the 3rd day of January, 2008.

2 The plaintiff is in poor health and does not work at this time. She resides at the home of her parents. The first named defendant is the nominated defendant for the Adelaide and Meath Hospital incorporating the National Children's Hospital, also known as Tallaght Hospital, Tallaght, Dublin 24. The second defendant is a limited liability company and is the cleaning company employed by the first named defendant at Tallaght Hospital.

3 The plaintiff's claim is that on or about the 16th day of January, 2006, when the plaintiff was a patient in the defendant's said hospital (and thus a visitor within the meaning of the Occupier's Liability Act 1995), she walked into the pantry area of the Lynn Ward in the said hospital. Owing to the presence of a wet and highly slippery and thus dangerous floor surface, she was caused to slip and to fall heavily and was thereby occasioned severe personal injuries, loss and damage.

4 The first defendant joined the cleaning company named in the title herein, initially by way of third party notice. The said defendants were later joined as co-defendants to this action. The basis of the first named defendant's claim is that the second named defendant failed to adequately clean the said area and failed to adequately warn the plaintiff of a potential danger.

5 The plaintiff's claim is that at in or about 10 o'clock on the morning of the 16th January, 2006, the plaintiff was allowed, permitted, and/or felt free to enter the said pantry area in order to obtain a drink to enable her to take some tablets. The plaintiff's claim is that there was no sign telling her not to enter the said pantry area, nor was there a warning to tell her that the area had just been cleaned. She claims that the cleaning company failed to put up a yellow man or yellow sign at the locus of the accident and that she was in the hospital as an in-patient where there was a relatively relaxed atmosphere and that she had no understanding that she was not allowed to go into the said pantry area.

The Pleadings

6 The plaintiff claims as follows;

(a) That the defendants, their servants and/or agents failed to clean and also failed to dry off the said pantry floor adequately or at all;

(b) Failed to warn the plaintiff of the wet and therefore highly slippery and dangerous nature of the said floor surface;

(c) Permitted the plaintiff to walk on a wet and thereby slippery and dangerous floor surface;

(d) Failed to place warning signs at and around the wet and slippery area;

(e) Provided a dangerous floor surface:-

The surface roughness of the floor area inside the kitchen/pantry area is 5 microns, which is low. In dry conditions this provides good slip resistance. However, in wet conditions this surface is very slippery. The floor when wet fails to provide a satisfactory slip resistance and is dangerous;

(f) Permitted and encouraged the patients, including the plaintiff, to use the said kitchen/pantry area when the defendants knew or ought to have known that same was dangerous;

(g) Washed the floor shortly before the plaintiff walked upon the same and permitted that to occur by failing to place obvious ‘Wet Floor’ signs or to otherwise warn the plaintiff that the floor was wet and dangerous;

(h) Failed to prevent the plaintiff's access to the said area at the time the floor was wet, by, for example, the simple expedient of locking the entrance door until the floor was dried of or otherwise had become dry so that it was safe to walk upon;

(i) Breached their duty under s. 3 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 in failing to provide and to maintain a safe floor surface;

(j) Breached the provisions of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work legislation including the regulations made thereunder insofar as same effects and promotes the safety of third parties such as the plaintiff;

(k) Failed to corner off the said area until the floor was dry and safe;

(l) Failed to have any or any reasonable care for the safety and health of the plaintiff while she was a visitor and patient in the said hospital;

(m) Failed to take any adequate and proper due care for the ill plaintiff;

(n) Failed to have any proper or adequate safe cleaning method or system in place;

(o) Failed to accord the plaintiff's proper care so that she was not permitted or required to walk upon a wet and dangerous floor surface.

(p) Further or in the alternative the plaintiff shall rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

7 The first named defendant has filed a full defence and claims that the injuries suffered were, caused by the plaintiff's own acts. They allege that the plaintiff was negligent and in breach of duty in that she:

(a) entered the kitchen area in circumstances where she had been specifically told on numerous occasions not to do so as she was not allowed to enter the kitchen area, being an area restricted to hospital staff;

(b) Was aware that patients (including the plaintiff) were not permitted to enter the kitchen area;

(c) Was specifically told not to enter the kitchen area by a member of the cleaning staff as the floor was wet;

(d) Failed to have any regard to the yellow warning sign which was in place which read ‘Caution – wet floor’;

(e) Failed to take any reasonable care in all the circumstances;

(f) Failed to have any or any regard for her own safety;

(g) Failed to look where she was walking;

(h) Failed to have any or any proper lookout;

(i) Failed to wear safe and suitable footwear;

(j) Failed to use her common sense;

(k) Failed to act with a modicum of caution for her safety;

(l) Being the author of her own misfortune;

(m) Failed to mitigate her loss;

(n) The defendant reserves the right to furnish further particulars and the plaintiff further pleads that they will rely on such further or other evidence of negligence and breach of duty on the part of the plaintiff as may arise from the examination of the plaintiff and witnesses herein.

8 In addition the first named defendant pleads that if the plaintiff suffered personal injuries loss or damage, in the manner alleged, the same are caused by reasons or circumstances particularly within the knowledge of the plaintiff herself.

9 In addition, the first named defendant does not admit that the incident, the subject matter of these proceedings, occurred in the manner alleged or at all or that the plaintiff's alleged injuries relate to the accident alleged herein.

10 In addition, each allegation, statement and...