Court finds defendant liable for slip at stadium due to lack of maintenance plan but reduces damages for plaintiff's failure to use handrails.

Record No: 2016/ 03288

Neutral Citation: [2024] IECC 8

AN CHÚIRT CHUARDA

THE CIRCUIT COURT

DUBLIN CIRCUIT CIVIL COURT COUNTY OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

IN THE MATTER OF

DARREN BROOKS

Plaintiff

and

PÁIRC AN CHROCAIGH TEORANTA

Defendant

Judgment (ex tempore) of Her Honour Judge Jennifer O’Brien delivered this 10th day of July 2024

1. This case comes before the Court by way of personal injury summons issued on 11 May 2016. On the 20 September 2015 the plaintiff was attending the All-Ireland football final in Croke Park. Just prior to or at the half time he descended a spiral staircase, when he stepped off the stairway he slipped on pooled liquid. This caused injury to the plaintiff’s right hand. He says he reported the incident to one of the stewards. In the days that followed he attended for medical treatment. The medical reports are agreed. The Court has heard evidence from the plaintiff and from the engineers and also from the then Safety Officer of Croke Park. The Court has also reviewed photographs of the location. The experts agree that once wet the area where the fall occurred moves from a mild to a moderate category in terms of diminishment of slip resistance.

2. The plaintiff claims that steps should have been taken to warn him of the hazard whether by a steward or a notice or perhaps that the water should have been brushed away. The defendant submits that the hazard or surface water was obvious, and that the plaintiff should have taken greater care of himself. He should have used a handrail, perhaps, travelled more slowly. The plaintiff denies that he was rushing.

3. I am struck by the photographs of the accident locus in terms of the very clear signs of neglect depicted. There is a stalactite formed above the area and a corresponding stalagmite on the floor beneath, albeit that’s not the part of the floor the plaintiff slipped on. The concrete is worn and shiny and I accept the evidence of the plaintiff’s expert that this is caused by the constant footfall over the area.

4. I am somewhat concerned that, other than regular cleaning and reactionary type maintenance, there does not seem to be an active management plan for planned maintenance or indeed preventative maintenance such that maintenance is carried out at fixed intervals, having regard to the age of the stadium. Evidence was given that when something breaks down it is fixed. Evidence was given for the defendant that if the surface becomes a high risk for slippage, then steps will be taken such as mechanical enhancement of the surface and other techniques which would improve the surface area. Essentially this approach to maintenance of the stadium involves a ‘run-to-failure’ and to my mind this is not a satisfactory basis on which to operate a facility of this kind. The plaintiff in the Byrne case was taking a shortcut, here the plaintiff was using the stairwell as intended.

5. This Court is of the opinion that it is reasonable in all the circumstances that the defendant would have an appropriate condition-based maintenance plan such that the surfaces would be checked at regular intervals and treated appropriately which may from time to time include mechanical treatment, so as to ensure a safe surface for the user. It is not a good defence to say, ‘we have no other slip and fall cases.’ The defendant should have an appropriate maintenance plan for the surfaces which avoids failure of the materials which is inevitable where no such plan is in place.

6. As such, the liability issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff as it is clear to this Court that no steps were taken to monitor and properly maintain the surface, other than regular cleaning.

7. There is however an element of contributory negligence given that the plaintiff failed to use either of the handrails which were available to him. The plaintiff suffered an extremely painful injury to his right hand, which he fractured. He had to attend for surgery and later for physio treatment. He took four weeks off work at the time. He continues to suffer pain and there is a small scar. The Court is of the view that this was a moderate fracture where full recovery is expected and as such assesses damages in the sum of € 30,200. This figure is reduced by 20% in light of the contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, that is to the sum of €24,160. There are no special damages.

8. The Court makes an order for costs in favour of the plaintiff including reserved and discovery costs to be taxed in default of agreement. The Court grants a stay pending appeal.

Appearances Fred Gilligan BL for the plaintiff instructed by Mackay Solicitors. Paul O’Neill BL for the defendant instructed by Shaffrey & Company Solicitors.