The Supreme Court allowed Dublin Bus’s appeal in a case brought by bus driver Vincent Thompson, who was injured when a bus suspension failed during a journey in 2005. The Court held that the applicable workplace safety regulations did not impose absolute liability on an employer for a work equipment failure.
Mr Thompson was driving a No. 201 bus on the Tallaght–Boharnabreena route at about 7.55pm on 27 September 2005. At approximately the fourth ramp at Kiltipper, the bus’s pneumatic suspension malfunctioned, causing a loss of its “cushion effect” and injuring his neck and lower back. The trial judge found that Mr Thompson had not been shown to be driving too fast, that Dublin Bus had a proper inspection and maintenance regime, and that the ramps complied with best practice. The judge also found that Mr Thompson suffered an ongoing physical deficit as a result of the suspension failure.
The High Court nevertheless found for Mr Thompson against Dublin Bus. It concluded that Regulation 19 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations 1993 imposed, in practical terms, an absolute duty regarding the safety of equipment provided to employees. Dublin Bus appealed that interpretation. No issue was raised on appeal against South Dublin County Council, which was responsible for the public road.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Susan Denham on 5 March 2015, the Supreme Court considered Regulations 19 and 20 alongside the European directives they implemented. Regulation 19 required employers to take necessary measures to ensure equipment was suitable and could be used without risk, and to take appropriate measures to minimise risks where they could not be fully eliminated. The Court also noted that breaches of the regulations could constitute criminal offences, requiring care in interpreting their scope.
The Court concluded that the Irish regulations used language corresponding to the directives’ minimum safety requirements. They did not clearly impose a stricter standard of absolute liability. On the trial findings, Dublin Bus had taken necessary measures and appropriate steps to minimise risk; the evidence did not identify further steps required to comply. The Court therefore found no breach of statutory duty and allowed Dublin Bus’s appeal. The ruling concerned the statutory duty argued in this case and did not disturb the trial findings about Mr Thompson’s injury or the maintenance regime.