The High Court dismissed Tina Altman’s personal injury claim against Blackrock Clinic Limited, finding that the raised walkway where she fell did not constitute a danger to pedestrians.
Mr Justice Bernard J. Barton delivered the judgment on 20 January 2015. The trial had been divided: the court heard the issue of liability first, while the question of the amount of any damages was adjourned because Ms Altman, who represented herself, was not ready to call some medical witnesses or update her details of injury and loss.
Ms Altman claimed she fell on 29 June 2006 while crossing the clinic access road to a pedestrian walkway. She said her foot caught on the kerb. Her case was that the kerb and walkway were hazardous, including because the kerb was low and unpainted. The clinic denied liability and pleaded that she had been contributorily negligent.
The judgment records evidence from Ms Altman that the walkway was dark and dirty, the surrounding trees and bushes obscured it, and no pedestrian crossing was present. The judge rejected that account, relying on CCTV footage and photographs taken about two hours after the fall. He found the footage and photographs broadly represented the conditions at the time and accepted the clinic manager’s evidence that missing seconds in the footage were probably caused by the recording process rather than deliberate interference.
The footage showed Ms Altman crossing on or beside a pedestrian crossing before disappearing from camera view behind a sign. It showed that she fell on the walkway, but did not establish why. The judge found that she was familiar with the clinic and knew the walkway was raised. He also found that the kerb was clearly visible to a pedestrian keeping a proper lookout.
The judge said the kerb’s height was measured at 88 millimetres. The parties’ engineers disagreed about whether that height was unsafe; the court concluded that the arrangement did not constitute a danger. It was therefore unnecessary to decide precisely how Ms Altman fell. The judge added that, even if that conclusion were wrong, he was not satisfied about the mechanism or reason for the fall.
The court found Ms Altman had not proved her claim on the balance of probabilities. It vacated the order that had adjourned the trial on issues relating to damages and dismissed the proceedings. The court did not determine the amount of damages.