Warning - Tables have legs!

I find the below-reported case literally incredible. I had thought that the courts were becoming more sensible in recent times but this high court case takes the biscuit.
Where will this lead to? recorded voices (like dublin airport escalators) telling us to be careful as we sit down because tables, surprise surprise, have legs attached? or more likely a ban on tablecloths.
Apart from this, the amount 20K for what seems like "muscle spasms" is outrageous. Ordinary people work for years to get this kind of money.



http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/woman-awarded-20k-for-banging-knee-on-table-leg-in-restaurant-446565.html


A €20,000 High Court damages award to a woman who banged her knee against the leg of a table while sitting down to dinner will have serious repercussions for hoteliers and restaurateurs.


Ms Justice Mary Faherty heard that hairdresser ** had been directed to a table in The Mullingar Park Hotel restaurant, had waited while the manager politely withdrew her chair, then sat down and injured her left knee as she pulled her chair in to the table.
The plaintiff had booked a Mother’s Day weekend at the hotel with five friends in March 2011.
She claimed that being directed to the table setting right over the leg, which was concealed by a table cloth, constituted “a trap” and negligence on the part of the hotel owners Euro Plaza Hotel Limited which trades as The Mullingar Park Hotel.
The plaintif told Padraig McCarton, senior counsel, who appeared for her with barrister Paul Twomey, that she had not been given any warning from the restaurant manager that the leg was hidden right beneath where she had been directed to sit.
She had been awarded €18,000 damages at Mullingar Circuit Court by Judge Doirbhile Flanagan whose judgment was appealed to the High Court. Ms Justice Faherty affirmed the lower court’s finding and increased damages to €20,000 and costs.
The plaintif claimed she immediately felt pain and shock but had her meal before retiring to her room where staff had brought her an ice pack and a drink to settle her nerves.
When she returned home she had attended her local doctor, Beaumont Hospital for X-rays and later a specialist in muscle spasm. The injury had disrupted her personal and professional life.
A forensic engineer said if he had been asked pre-accident to risk assess the set up in the dining room he would not have directed the hotel to warn people about the presence of the table leg under the tablecloth.

Esel

I would agree with the two judges - maybe not in the amount (based on the injury you have quoted), but imo the hotel was at fault. IANAL.

Samuel T. Cogley

Okay so fair play to you for posting over here rather than the cluster fcuk that always ensues in AH but explain could you explain what you find difficult with the following:

Negligence is proven
Injury is assessed
Damages awarded

CIARAN_BOYLE

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Okay so fair play to you for posting over here rather than the cluster fcuk that always ensues in AH but explain could you explain what you find difficult with the following:

Negligence is proven
Injury is assessed
Damages awarded

For me

Tables generally have table legs, it's foreseeable therefore that the table will have a table leg.

It's not unexpected or a trap that it's concealed it's just something to look for before you sit down.

Secondly she banged her knee against the tableleg. However to cause injury such as described I would feel that she had to recklessly apply significant force when banging her knee against the table leg or she would have to have a preexisting condition.

If she applied reckless force she would be primarily responsible (and contributory negligence would apply). If she had a preexisting condition that banging her knee aggravated then surely the preexisting condition is at fault and not the hotel.

Samuel T. Cogley

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

For me

Tables generally have table legs, it's foreseeable therefore that the table will have a table leg.

It's not unexpected or a trap that it's concealed it's just something to look for before you sit down.

The other side of this is that it's such an obvious hazard that it should have been risk assessed and any one of a dozen solution put in place, such as shorter table cloths, mind the leg dear, or the positioning of the chairs. At the very least the waiter should not have invited the patron to sit there.

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Secondly she banged her knee against the tableleg. However to cause injury such as described I would feel that she had to recklessly apply significant force when banging her knee against the table leg or she would have to have a preexisting condition.

If she applied reckless force she would be primarily responsible (and contributory negligence would apply). If she had a preexisting condition that banging her knee aggravated then surely the preexisting condition is at fault and not the hotel.

And no doubt this was argued - and it was reported that CN could not apply here.

Pre-existing condition - Egg shell Skull rule aka you take your victim as you find them.

Robbo

Worth bearing in mind the higher duty of care here that hoteliers owe under the Hotel Proprietors Act...

Samuel T. Cogley

Robbo wrote: »

Worth bearing in mind the higher duty of care here that hoteliers owe under the Hotel Proprietors Act...

Very interesting thanks!

GM228

Robbo wrote: »

Worth bearing in mind the higher duty of care here that hoteliers owe under the Hotel Proprietors Act...

Is there a "higher duty" though?

All the Hotel Proprietors Act seems to afford is a statutory reasonable duty of care, no different to the common law duty of care.

Samuel T. Cogley

GM228 wrote: »

Is there a "higher duty" though?

All the Hotel Proprietors Act seems to afford is a statutory reasonable duty of care, no different to the common law duty of care.

4.—(1) Where a person is received as a guest at a hotel, whether or not under special contract, the proprietor of the hotel is under a duty to take reasonable care of the person of the guest and to ensure that, for the purpose of personal use by the guest, the premises are as safe as reasonable care and skill can make them.

That seems like a higher duty to me due to the bolded part.

Robbo

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

4.—(1) Where a person is received as a guest at a hotel, whether or not under special contract, the proprietor of the hotel is under a duty to take reasonable care of the person of the guest and to ensure that, for the purpose of personal use by the guest, the premises are as safe as reasonable care and skill can make them.

That seems like a higher duty to me due to the bolded part.

McMahon & Binchy seem to think so.

From this it would seem that a guest’s statutory right against a hotel proprietor is wider than an invitee’s right against an invitor at common law and a visitor’s claim under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1995. For, as it is phrased in the statute, it would seem that the hotel proprietor is also liable for the acts of his independent contractors.

The point is made more strongly in Jennings et al on personal injuries.

This is clearly a higher duty of care than the "common duty of care" owed by the hotel as an occupier and replicates the higher duty of care imposed by the common law towards a person who pays for accomodation.

There's case law that this doesn't just apply to a patron who's taking a room in the hotel.

Samuel T. Cogley

200+ posts in AH, Admittedly a lot of them from me talking ****e. Solved here in 10 posts, most of which was just a bit of musing.

NUTLEY BOY

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

4.—(1) Where a person is received as a guest at a hotel, whether or not under special contract, the proprietor of the hotel is under a duty to take reasonable care of the person of the guest and to ensure that, for the purpose of personal use by the guest, the premises are as safe as reasonable care and skill can make them.

That seems like a higher duty to me due to the bolded part.

My construction of that would be to say that it provides for the general and normal duty of care but specifically focuses on that concept applying to the premises. Frankly, I think that the section cited is a bit of a tautology...