The Supreme Court allowed Patrick J. Lynch’s appeal after he was kicked by a bullock while working at a cattle mart operated by Binnacle Limited, trading as Cavan Co-op Mart. The court decided the primary issue of liability in his favour, assessed his contributory negligence at 33% and remitted the case to the High Court to assess damages. It did not itself assess damages.
Mr Lynch had worked as a yard man and drover at the Cavan mart for more than 30 years. On 24 October 2003, he was left alone for about half an hour while two other employees were away from their posts. The usual system involved one worker moving cattle into single pens, another opening the pens’ exit gates, and a third directing animals from the weighbridge into the sales ring.
With no one available to help, Mr Lynch opened a pen’s rear gate and went past a Limousin bullock to open the gate at the far end. The animal kicked him in the testicles. His claim alleged that the employer had negligently operated an unsafe system of work.
At trial, the High Court judge accepted the account of how the injury happened, though “with more than a degree of hesitation”, but dismissed the claim. The judge found no evidence that the employer knew or ought to have known the other workers would leave their posts, or that their simultaneous absence was anything other than unique. The appeal was narrowed to whether the employer was responsible for the workers’ absence and the resulting unsafe working arrangement.
Justice Fennelly said the evidence supported the conclusion that the system was safe when both other employees were present, but unsafe without their assistance. The employer called no expert evidence to contradict that account. The judgment stressed that the decision was based on the evidence in this case and did not establish a general rule requiring livestock marts to employ a particular number of workers.
The court held that the employer’s duty to provide a reasonably safe system of work was its own and could not be delegated. It also concluded that the absent workers had abandoned their assigned tasks in the course of their employment, making the employer vicariously responsible. The court found the employer liable on the primary issue, whether through vicarious liability or its non-delegable duty.
However, the court accepted the employer’s contributory-negligence argument. It said Mr Lynch, an experienced cattle handler, should have appreciated the risk of entering a pen alone with a bullock. It assessed his share of responsibility at 33%, while noting that the main duty to ensure a safe system rested with the employer. The matter was remitted to the High Court for assessment of damages.