The High Court has found in favour of Tipperary County Council in a personal injuries claim brought by Breda Long, who was seriously injured when she fell from a footpath in November 2018.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 10 June 2024, Ms Justice Nuala Jackson accepted that Ms Long slipped on wet leaves and associated debris before falling partly onto the road. But the judge found that the evidence did not establish that the council had created a danger, as required for liability under the law governing roads and footpaths.
Ms Long had been walking family pets on a footpath familiar to her when she fell. She suffered injuries to her right shoulder, left wrist and head, and was taken to hospital by ambulance. She spent five days as an inpatient. The wrist injury had largely resolved, but the shoulder injury continued to restrict movement, and full recovery appeared unlikely, the judge said.
The dispute centred on what caused the fall and whether the council was legally responsible. Ms Long said she slipped on wet leaves and material beneath them at the edge of the footpath. An ambulance note recorded that she had said she “tripped over the kerb”. The judge considered that account plausible in light of Ms Long’s pain and distress, and accepted her evidence that she slipped on leaves and debris.
A retired local garda who came upon the scene described cracks and other damage to the footpath, and said wet leaves regularly gathered there in winter. However, he had not noticed anything beneath the leaves. The plaintiff’s engineer suggested that the shape of the road and footpath might cause water to collect, leading to silt that could make the surface slippery. The judge found no evidence that water had ponded or that silt had accumulated at the site. The engineer had described that explanation as a possibility, not something he could confirm.
The court also considered photographs showing that the footpath had been altered after the accident. The judge said the limited discovery about those later works could not fill the gap in the evidence, particularly as no pre-trial application had been made seeking further discovery. She also declined to draw conclusions from a witness who had been present in court but was not called to give evidence.
The judge held that the plaintiff had not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the council’s construction or other positive action created a danger. She classified the case as non-feasance—the failure to maintain a road or footpath—rather than misfeasance, which can give rise to liability where a road authority’s positive act creates a danger. The court therefore found in favour of the council. The judgment does not specify a damages award or a separate costs order.