€40k for escalator fall lost on appeal

At last some common sense from the Court of appeal.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/40k-for-escalator-fall-lost-on-appeal-425292.html?ref=yfp

The plaintiff "lost her balance and fell on the escalator to departures in Terminal 2 on November 2, 2011. She received what the court described as a “nasty” injury to her head and other soft tissue injuries. The appeal court said CCTV footage showed her left hand was not gripping the handrail and she was holding what appeared to be her boarding card.
The footage made clear that when she turned around to adjust her carry-on bag in some way, she fell over and fell down the escalator. A member of the public pushed the emergency button halting the escalator.
The High Court’s Mr Justice Michael Hanna, in April 2015, awarded her €60,000, but found one third contributory negligence, bringing the award to €40,000.
A three-judge appeal court said it could not agree.
Mr Justice Peart said the sole basis for the finding of negligence was that the defendant failed to bring to the plaintiff's attention, by adequate signage, that she could have taken one of the lifts rather than the escalator.
The judge said the lifts are in the immediate vicinity of the escalator and clearly visible because they are behind a feature blue transparent glass wall.
Mr Justice Peart said the duty of care the owner/occupier has is restricted to taking all reasonable steps to avoid injury which is known to exist or which ought to be known to exist. It was a duty prevent damage from “unusual danger”.
It cannot be said the escalator presented an unusual danger, such that there was an obligation to warn someone of any particular danger in using it, beyond providing normal signage, he said.
“Indeed, its is only common sense that on a moving escalator, the person would use the handrail to take reasonable care for her own safety,” he said."


The question what posessed the High Court to make the original ruling in the first case? They also ensured that the majority of the award was paid over before appeal - I presume this will mean that the legal advisors behind the case will actually get paid at the end of the day!

hullaballoo

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/66b790bfb7beeeb3802580490054b0f3?OpenDocument

There's the judgment for anyone who's interested.

It isn't a particularly interesting case from a legal perspective. It's sort of more indicative of why the appeals process exists - sometimes, a judge sitting alone, making a quick decision (this was made the day after the conclusion of the case in an ex tempore decision) will make a mistake. In this case, the Trial Judge conflated lack of signage with causation... it really isn't much more interesting than that.

In relation to the payment ordered by the Trial Judge, it does not form part of the judgment. There is no indication that that order was vacated. It will probably be an issue for the parties to resolve but doesn't really come within the remit of the CA to deal with that issue now.

plodder

I think it was a terrible howler and that's the kindest way of looking at it. I wonder how much does the use of contributory negligence actually encourage bizarre outcomes like this (before it was overturned). The judge can give a nod to "common sense" and personal responsibility (by holding the plaintiff partially negligent) but still effectively award an eye watering amount, that most people would regard as unjustified.

hullaballoo

hullaballoo wrote: »

In this case, the Trial Judge conflated lack of signage with causation... it really isn't much more interesting than that.

You make it seem like it was a reasonable error that anybody could make. The smallest degree of common sense should have made him stop and think where he was going with that judgement. Nanny State Rules OK!

hullaballoo

Deleted User wrote: »

You make it seem like it was a reasonable error that anybody could make. The smallest degree of common sense should have made him stop and think where he was going with that judgement. Nanny State Rules OK!

Do I?

I don't know how familiar you are with court proceedings but the general idea of having advocates is making the best of a bad lot and being persuasive.

Aside from that, you seem to be making a similar mistake to the error made by the Trial Judge here and conflating two completely different concepts by saying that the application of common sense removes the likelihood of human error?

NUTLEY BOY

hullaballoo wrote: »

Do I?

I don't know how familiar you are with court proceedings but the general idea of having advocates is making the best of a bad lot and being persuasive.

Aside from that, you seem to be making a similar mistake to the error made by the Trial Judge here and conflating two completely different concepts by saying that the application of common sense removes the likelihood of human error?

Many a jury has applied common sense but had their verdict whacked on appeal