The Court of Appeal allowed Dunnes Stores’ appeal against a €67,450 High Court award to a checkout operator who injured her right arm while trying to remove a wedged bag of potatoes for a customer.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Irvine on 14 March 2016, overturned the High Court’s finding that Dunnes Stores was liable for the injury. The appeal challenged both the damages award and the finding of negligence. The Court of Appeal concluded that the injury could not be attributed to negligence, breach of duty or breach of statutory duty by the employer.
The employee had worked for Dunnes Stores for about 26 years. On 10 August 2011, she left her checkout to replace a customer’s torn bag of potatoes. While trying to pull a 10kg bag from between other bags on a pallet, she suffered a partial tear to her right biceps muscle.
At trial, the High Court judge accepted her account that she was “yanking” the bag free. He found that the store was short staffed, that she had no practical assistance available, and that its system for responding to requests for help had failed on the day. He also found the lift dangerous and her training inadequate because it did not cover the practical handling of products such as potatoes, dog food and compost. The High Court awarded her €67,450, finding no contributory negligence.
Dunnes Stores argued on appeal that checkout staff were trained to seek help from nearby staff or use the tannoy, and that other employees were available. The company also disputed that the injury resulted from an excessive lift or inadequate practical training.
The Court of Appeal held that the store’s assistance procedure was reasonable and had not failed. The employee had not called for help, although staff could have responded. The court also found that the injury occurred while she leaned over the pallet and pulled a wedged bag, rather than during the type of lift the trial judge had treated as excessive. It concluded that the regular manual-handling training was reasonable and that more product-specific training would not have covered this particular situation.
The court therefore allowed the appeal, finding no employer negligence or breach of duty. The judgment does not specify a replacement damages award or further order.