The High Court dismissed a claim by a ten-year-old boy who was seriously injured when a gate swung into him at the premises of Golden Vale Co-operative Mart Limited in Rathkeale, Co. Limerick.
In a judgment delivered on 4 May 2007, Mr Justice Michael Peart said the boy was trespassing on the premises on 30 December 2001 with three friends. They were taking a shortcut towards a library across the street. The boy said one of the others swung a large metal gate inwards, striking him and causing him to fall.
The plaintiff said the gate was unlocked. The defendant’s yard manager, Mr Kett, gave evidence that it was locked, as he said was required, and that the premises had been closed for the Christmas period. The judge accepted that Mr Kett honestly believed the gate was locked, but, on the balance of probabilities, proceeded on the basis that it could be opened. He noted that the boy’s account of being injured by a gate was recorded in hospital notes made shortly after the incident and had remained consistent.
The boy’s three companions did not attend the hearing. His counsel sought an adjournment, saying their evidence could assist with the dispute about the gate. The judge refused the request, concluding that their likely evidence would not cause real prejudice to the plaintiff’s case.
The boy was taken to Limerick Regional Hospital, where he underwent surgery to remove a severely damaged spleen. The judgment said the loss left him vulnerable to infection and required him to take antibiotics for the rest of his life. It also noted an abdominal scar and no other reported lasting effects.
The claim alleged that the defendant should have anticipated that the gate would attract children and ensured it was locked. The judge found that the boy was within the category of people owed a duty of care, despite being on the premises without permission. But he said the gate was not defective, inherently dangerous or an allurement requiring the defendant to keep it locked at all times.
The court concluded it was not reasonably foreseeable that a child might be injured when another child opened, or found open, an otherwise safe gate and swung it towards him. Extending the duty that far would impose an unfair and unreasonable burden, the judge said. He dismissed the claim.