The High Court has dismissed a caretaker’s personal injury claim against a driver and an education board over a 2012 collision on a Dungarvan campus, finding that his failure to stop before cycling from a pedestrian path onto an access road was the real and proximate cause of the accident.
Mr Justice David Keane gave judgment on 23 November 2018 in Vincent O’Mahoney’s action against Nicola McCarthy Hanlon and the Waterford and Wexford Education and Training Board. The case was heard on its merits; the court concluded that Mr O’Mahoney had not established negligence against either defendant.
Mr O’Mahoney was employed by the board as a caretaker. He was cycling through a pedestrian gateway and along a narrow path at the Dungarvan Adult Education Centre when his bicycle collided with Ms McCarthy Hanlon’s car. She was driving along a private campus road towards her allocated parking space. Mr O’Mahoney fell and injured his left shoulder, later undergoing surgery. The judgment said the operation was successful, though he still sometimes experienced inflammation.
He alleged that Ms McCarthy Hanlon had driven negligently and that the board had failed to ensure his safety on its premises, including through breaches of statutory and employment duties. He said he was travelling slowly and saw her car only as he emerged onto the road. She disputed his account, saying she was driving slowly and that he had told her he was not looking as he came out. The judgment records both accounts and does not treat the disputed exchange as an established fact.
The judge rejected the submission that Mr O’Mahoney was entitled to use the path as a cycleway because he and others had done so. The entrance and path were for pedestrians, the court said, and cyclists should use the campus’s main entrance. The judge also accepted expert evidence that a pedestrian or dismounted cyclist had time to stop before reaching traffic on the access road. The evidence did not establish that the hedge made the junction unsafe for someone taking reasonable care.
The court found that Ms McCarthy Hanlon was likely travelling at a relatively low speed. It also rejected the board-liability arguments, finding no breach of workplace safety regulation 14 or section 3 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1995. The judge said reducing or removing the hedge was not required in the circumstances.
The claim against both defendants was dismissed. The judgment records that finding; it does not specify a separate damages award or costs order.