The High Court dismissed Eoin Ryan’s personal injuries claim against the Office of Public Works over an accident at a children’s playground in Kilkenny Castle. The court found that the play unit he tripped over was not a “danger” under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1995 and that the defendant had not acted with reckless disregard for his safety.
Mr Ryan was injured on 3 April 2013 while at the playground with his then partner and their three children. He was waiting near a slide while two of the children tried to reach it by a twisted ladder. Seeing the younger boy’s legs dangling from the platform, Mr Ryan ran beneath the play structure, tripped on a low metal bar and landed on another. He suffered a serious spleen injury, but later made a full recovery.
Mr Ryan alleged that the bars created a hazard and that the defendant had failed to warn visitors about them. His engineer argued that the unit did not comply with parts of the playground equipment standard BS EN 1176. The defendant disputed that Mr Ryan was a visitor and argued that he was a recreational user under the 1995 Act.
Justice Murphy found that Mr Ryan was a recreational user. The applicable duty under section 4(1) was not to injure him intentionally or act with reckless disregard for his person or property. The judge accepted evidence that the unit had been assessed by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents in 2008, found compliant with EN 1176 and rated low risk, with no remedial work recommended. The court also accepted that appropriate inspections and maintenance had been carried out.
The judge concluded that the bars were designed for toddler play, were visible, remained within the play structure and did not protrude into areas of movement. The unit complied with the relevant British and European standards, and its ordinary risks did not make it inherently dangerous for the purposes of the Act.
The court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that section 4(4) imposed a broader duty covering the unit’s design and construction. It interpreted that provision as requiring an occupier to maintain a recreational structure in safe condition. The judge said that a maintenance failure causing injury could give rise to liability without proof of recklessness. Even if section 4(4) also covered design and installation, the outcome would not change: the judge found that Mr Ryan’s injury resulted solely from his own want of care.
The court dismissed the claim. The judgment does not award damages to Mr Ryan.