- within Employment and HR, Insurance and Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring topic(s)
- with readers working within the Banking & Credit and Transport industries
For further information on any of the issues discussed in this publication please contact the related contact(s) on this page.
The High Court has dismissed a claim taken by an employee who suffered personal injuries when she tripped over a vacuum cleaner at the dental practice where she worked.
In Walsh v Juniper Orthodontics Limited [2026] IEHC 99, the court referred to the incident as a very unfortunate accident and noted that while steps can always be taken to eradicate any possible accident, an employer is only required to take reasonable steps to prevent an accident that is reasonably foreseeable.
Background
The plaintiff, employed as a dental assistant at the defendant's practice, was vacuuming a flight of stairs and paused to check whether the receptionist was on the telephone, so as not to disturb her. After leaving the vacuum cleaner's rigid arm resting against the banister, it fell, causing the flexible hose to lie across a step. As the plaintiff descended the stairs, she stepped on the unseen hose, lost her balance, and sustained a significant ankle injury.
The plaintiff suffered an avulsion fracture on her right leg, while investigations eight years later revealed she had suffered a strain of ligaments and a ganglion cyst had formed in the area as a result of the injury.
In cross-examination, the plaintiff accepted that she had left the vacuum cleaner at the bottom of the stairs but she stated that she was not aware that the steel arm, which had been resting against the banister, had fallen. She also gave evidence that she had been blinded by the strong sunlight.
System of Work
Evidence was given that part of the plaintiff's duties was to carry out light cleaning operations in the clinic from time to time during the day. This would occur when either a patient did not attend for a scheduled appointment, or when there was a gap in the scheduled appointments during the day.
The defendant accepted that when vacuum cleaning the lower flight of stairs, it was necessary for the plaintiff to stop from time to time and to check that the receptionist upstairs was not taking a telephone call. It was, however, denied that this was an eccentric or unsafe system of work.
Court's Decision
Negligence
The court held this to be an unfortunate accident. It is entirely routine for individuals vacuuming a staircase, whether at home or in a workplace, to pause the task for various reasons. It is the case that the rigid arm of a vacuum cleaner, when left propped against a banister, may topple and come to rest on the ground. Such an occurrence can happen without any negligence on the part of anybody.
The plaintiff accepted that she had paused the cleaning, left the vacuum at the bottom of the stairs, and was aware of its general position, though she did not know the rigid arm had fallen while she was upstairs. The arm's fall was an unfortunate incident that caused the hose to lie across the step and led directly to her ankle injury. There is no evidence that this occurred due to any negligence by the defendant.
System of Work
The court did not accept that there was an unsafe system of work in place. Given that this was a relatively small practice, the court held it was reasonable for the plaintiff to carry out light cleaning duties during the day. Further, stopping a vacuum cleaner on a flight of stairs is not an unsafe practice. The court held that evidence given by the plaintiff that she had to stop on six occasions when cleaning the bottom three steps was not credible.
Evidence was given on behalf of the plaintiff that different systems could have been adopted, including a warning light system for when the receptionist was on the telephone or that vacuuming should only be carried out outside of working hours. The court rejected these arguments, setting out that the duty that is placed on an employer, either at common law or under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, is to take reasonable steps to prevent an accident that is reasonably foreseeable. There is no duty on an employer to come up with steps to eradicate any possible accident.
The court also did not accept on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff's eyesight would have been affected by the sunlight to such a degree that she could not have seen the vacuum cleaner as she descended the lower flight of steps. Even if the plaintiff was somewhat blinded by the incoming sunlight, that did not constitute negligence on the part of the defendant in relation to the system of work that was in operation at that time. It just required the plaintiff to take more care while descending the lower flight of stairs.
Conclusion
The court held there to be no negligence on the part of the defendant as either the employer of the plaintiff or as occupier of the premises, and the claim was dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- Accidents are not automatically evidence of negligence. The court held that the fall of the vacuum cleaner's rigid arm was an unfortunate incident that could occur without fault on anyone's part.
- Employers must take reasonable steps; not eliminate all risks. The judgment reiterates that an employer's duty under both common law and the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 is to prevent accidents that are reasonably foreseeable, not to devise systems that eradicate every possible risk.
- Alternative systems are not required if the existing one is reasonable. Suggestions such as warning lights or limiting cleaning to after-hours were rejected as exceeding what is reasonably required of an employer.
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.
