A prison officer’s negligence and breach of contract claim over injuries he suffered when tea fell from an upper walkway at Mountjoy Women’s Prison was dismissed by the High Court. Ms Justice Irvine found that he had not proved that the defendants’ negligence caused the accident and that the prison’s system of work took reasonable care for his safety.
The officer, Neil Martin Connaughton, was on duty on the ground floor on 15 October 1996. He told the court he heard a bang and a smash, felt hot liquid fall on him and slipped on tea that had reached the floor. He believed it had come from a prisoner above, but accepted he could not say what caused it to spill. No prisoner gave direct evidence about the event.
Mr Connaughton argued that prisoners carrying trays and pots of tea between the food hatch and their cells created an unsafe system. His engineering witness criticised the lack of a one-way route, a risk assessment, mats to secure teapots and barriers to stop liquid falling from the walkway. He also suggested providing kettles in cells or a cafeteria.
The defendants’ witnesses described the unit as supervised and orderly at mealtimes. The judge accepted that the ground floor could be busy, but found the upper level was well supervised and the food system orderly. Evidence of earlier spills did not establish a history of injuries or complaints. The judge found that prisoners carrying full trays generally moved back to their cells in an orderly flow, and that staff could address congestion.
The court held that the officer had to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendants’ negligence caused his injuries. It was not necessary to rule out every possible non-negligent explanation, but the evidence had to support a reasonable inference of negligence rather than conjecture. The judge found no objective facts supporting that inference: several possible causes of the spill remained, and the circumstances did not justify shifting the burden of proof under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
The judge also rejected the proposed alternative systems as proof of negligence, noting that they could create other risks. She said the employer’s duty was to take reasonable care, not to eliminate every possibility of injury. The officer’s failure to walk beneath the overhead walkway was irrelevant to the decision; he had not been trained to do so.
The court dismissed the claim, finding no negligence or breach of duty by the defendants. It treated the injuries as the result of an accident for which the employer was not responsible.