The Supreme Court allowed an employer’s appeal to a limited extent, finding that a shop manager was 25% contributorily negligent after she tripped in a cluttered office and fractured her wrist. The Court reduced her damages from €54,900 to €41,175.
The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Denham on 7 March 2012, concerned an appeal by John Joseph Kavanagh, trading as Kavanagh Art & Graphics, against a High Court decision in favour of Noeleen Coffey. She had worked for Kavanagh for seven and a half years, including five years as shop manager at a Camden Street premises in Dublin.
The High Court found that Coffey tripped while trying to tidy the office area on 4 October 2004. She fell over a box and fractured her right wrist. The trial judge accepted evidence that the area was regularly cluttered, lacked a safe route for staff and presented tripping hazards. The judge found Kavanagh negligent for failing to provide a safe workplace and system of work, and rejected his argument that Coffey had failed to keep a proper lookout.
Kavanagh appealed, arguing that the trial judge gave insufficient weight to his evidence and that Coffey should bear some responsibility, including because of her role in managing the business. He had also applied to introduce new evidence, but did not pursue that application at the appeal hearing.
The Supreme Court said it was bound by the trial judge’s primary factual findings, which were supported by credible evidence. It nevertheless reviewed the inferences drawn from those facts. The Court noted that Coffey managed the shop, worked at a desk in the office, knew the area was cluttered and potentially dangerous, had previously complained about it, and was clearing the office when she fell. It concluded that these circumstances established contributory negligence of 25%.
The High Court had awarded €2,400 in special damages, €27,500 for pain and suffering to date, and €25,000 for future pain and suffering. The Supreme Court reduced the total award to €41,175. Its conclusion allowed the appeal to that extent; the judgment did not overturn the underlying finding that the employer was negligent.