The Court of Appeal has ordered a rehearing of the liability issue in a personal injury action brought by Thomas Keegan against Sligo County Council over a 2013 fall at his home in Cranmore, Sligo.
In a judgment delivered on 10 October 2019, Mr Justice McGovern said the High Court trial was unsatisfactory because the judge had not meaningfully analysed differing accounts of how Mr Keegan fell. The appeal court allowed the council’s appeal and directed that liability be remitted to the High Court for a rehearing. It did not decide liability itself.
Mr Keegan, a council tenant, said he slipped on wet porch tiles while returning home at about 5pm on 18 November 2013. The tiles were exposed to the prevailing wind, and he had said they often became wet. He had used a rubber-backed mat to reduce the slipping risk, but removed it that morning because it was wet; on his return, he said, it was gone. He suffered a pilon fracture to his left ankle requiring surgical fixation.
The trial judge had found in Mr Keegan’s favour, awarded €50,000 in general damages to the date of judgment and €55,000 for the future, and added €650 in agreed special damages, making €105,650 in total. The judge made no finding of contributory negligence.
On appeal, the court identified several problems with the liability decision. Mr Keegan gave accounts that differed on whether he began slipping before or after putting his key in the door and opening it. The appeal court said the trial judge had not adequately explained why he accepted the account on which the claim depended. It also held that the burden of proving how the accident happened remained with Mr Keegan; the trial judge had wrongly treated the council as needing medical evidence to show the described fall could not have occurred.
The court said the trial judge also failed to properly assess whether Mr Keegan had taken reasonable care for his own safety. Relevant matters included his knowledge that the wet tiles could be slippery, the missing mat, and his admission that he had consumed four or five pints of Guinness between 1pm and 5pm. The appeal judgment did not determine whether he was contributorily negligent.
The Court of Appeal also held that the trial judge should not have found the house unfit for human habitation when that issue had not been specifically pleaded. It expressed no view on the underlying legal questions.
Although the council challenged the damages assessment, the appeal court said the difference between the general damages awarded and the Book of Quantum’s upper range for a moderately severe ankle injury did not justify interference. The damages award was not set aside; the order was for a rehearing of liability.