The High Court has found a furniture retailer liable in negligence and under the Liability for Defective Products Act 1991 after a glass table collapsed and amputated a three-year-old girl’s left big toe. It awarded her €75,000 in general damages.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Bernard J. Barton on 6 May 2015, concerned an accident at a home in Tonnaphubble, Co Sligo, on 11 October 2007. The child, who was visiting while her mother babysat, was found near a window after the table top separated from its legs. No capable eyewitness saw the accident.
The judge concluded that the most likely explanation was that the child had crawled from a sofa onto the cantilever table and was trying to climb down when the glass failed. Engineers agreed the forces involved were not excessive. The court found the table top’s glass had fractured, while the glued flanges largely remained intact.
The court found that the table failed to meet a relevant European pre-standard for low tables, which required it to withstand a 100-kilogram force test. The judgment said no evidence showed that this model had been tested against or manufactured in accordance with that standard. The judge also found that over-tightening the legs during assembly probably caused microscopic cracking and contributed to the failure, while the evidence did not establish damage or abuse during display, transport or use in the home.
The retailer had arranged for a contractor to assemble the table for showroom display. The court found the retailer vicariously liable for negligent assembly and separately liable for supplying an unsafe product without conveying the weight warning contained in the assembly instructions. Although those instructions referred to a 20-kilogram limit, the court found the purchasers had not been told of it.
The parents’ claim was dismissed: the court found they could not reasonably have known about the table’s latent defects, and there was no other evidence of negligence by them. The German furniture brand, which was not joined as a defendant to the child’s claim, was not held directly liable to her in these proceedings. However, the judge found it was also a producer and apportioned blame between it and the retailer at one-third and two-thirds respectively, in the retailer’s favour. The retailer was ordered to pay the full damages, with a two-thirds contribution from the brand.
The child underwent surgery to remove the remaining end of the toe and was discharged from hospital two days after the accident. The judgment records lasting disfigurement and some cold-weather discomfort, alongside substantial physical and psychological recovery. The €75,000 award comprised €50,000 for pain and suffering to date and €25,000 for future pain and suffering. The judge said there was no claim for special damages. The form of final orders, including costs, was left for discussion with counsel.