The Supreme Court has set aside a High Court judgment awarding Geraldine Weir-Rodgers €84,666 for injuries sustained in a fall at a cliff edge in County Donegal, and dismissed her action against the landowner. The court said the issues raised in her cross-appeal did not arise after it found there was no liability.
Weir-Rodgers was seriously injured on 11 April 1997 after slipping on loose material while standing up from a grassy area near the cliff at Coolmore, Rosnowlagh. She fell down the slope into the sea and was rescued by a friend. Her injuries included fractures to her left shoulder, elbow, hip and pelvis, as well as ankle and foot injuries.
The High Court found the S.F. Trust Limited, the owner and occupier of the unused land, liable under section 4 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1995. The trial judge rejected the claim that the area should have been fenced, but found that a warning notice should have been provided. Damages were assessed at €113,000, reduced by 25 per cent for contributory negligence to €84,666.
The company appealed the liability finding and the apportionment of responsibility. Weir-Rodgers cross-appealed against the contributory-negligence finding and argued that the damages assessment was too low.
Delivering the Supreme Court judgment on 21 January 2005, Mr Justice Geoghegan said the applicable duty to recreational users and trespassers under section 4 was not to injure them intentionally or act with reckless disregard for their safety. He said the trial judge had not applied that higher threshold, and that the factors in the Act had to be considered at a standard more favourable to the occupier than ordinary negligence.
The judge said the accident site presented the inherent risks associated with sitting near a cliff, and that this was not an exceptionally unusual or dangerous condition requiring a warning. He added that even under an ordinary duty of reasonable care, the landowner would not have been unreasonable in failing to put up a notice. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and dismissed the action. It did not determine the cross-appeal because its decision on liability meant those issues did not arise.