We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Prison officer's claim for damages arising out of a slip and
fall accident in Mountyjoy Prison dismissed.
Facts
The Plaintiff was working as a prison guard in Mountjoy prison
when his accident occurred. The Plaintiff alleged that he
sustained injuries when he slipped on tea which had spilled down
from a balcony above where he was walking. The cause of the
spillage was unknown and was a matter of speculation during the
course of the hearing. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was
negligent in failing to implement measures to reduce the risk of
tea being spilled from an upper level down onto a lower level
whilst prisoners were bringing food and drinks back to their cells
at teatime.
Judgment
Having heard all of the evidence in the case, Irvine J accepted
the evidence put forward by the Defendant to the effect that no
such similar incidents had occurred in the 10 years prior to the
Plaintiff's accident. Irvine J accepted that the system which
was in place and which allowed prisoners to carry pots of tea
from a central distribution point back to their cells was not an
unsafe system. She stated that the activities at tea time were
orderly, well policed and extremely well organised and that this
system had been in operation for many years without adverse
consequences. Irvine J stated that an employer is not
obliged to provide a system which rules out any possibility of
injury. Employers are only expected to provide a system of work
which takes reasonable care for the safety of their employees and
this is what occurred in this case. Irvine J did not accept
that there was any negligence or breach of duty on the part of the
Defendants and accordingly, she dismissed the Plaintiff's
claim.
Comment
The issue at the heart of this case was articulated very well by
Irvine J in her Judgment when she stated that "an employer is
not an insurer of the health and safety of its employees". An
employer will have discharged their duty of care if they do what a
reasonable and prudent employer would have done in the
circumstances.
The issue of foreseeability appears to have been one of the
factors which underpinned Irvine J's decision. She
accepted the Defendant's evidence that there was no history of
any such similar incidents in the past and, on that basis,
determined that the Defendant could not be faulted for failing to
anticipate such an occurrence and for failing to take measures to
prevent it.
To read a full copy of the decision, please
click here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Those of you who are familiar now with the portal process may know the answer to the question – does responding to a settlement offer one day after the 15 working day time frame mean the offer is withdrawn or does it still stand?
A discussion on a recent case, where the High Court departed from the normal costs rules that follow an offer to settle intended to have the costs consequences associated with Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Some important changes to costs in legal proceedings take effect from 1 April 2013. One such change affects the operation of Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs).
London as a seat of arbitration, and English law as a law governing contracts, are probably the most popular options for trans-border dispute resolution clauses in transactions involving Ukrainian business.
Hkruk II (CHC) Limited v Marcus Alexander Heaney [2010] EWHC 2245 (Ch) is about a land owner who obtains an injunction against a developer to protect his rights to light.
The past two decades have seen an increase in trade globalization and growth of transnational companies, resulting in an escalation of cross-border disputes.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
