The High Court has dismissed Thomas Keegan’s personal injury claim against Sligo County Council after finding that he slipped and fractured his ankle at the entrance to his home, but had not proved the council was responsible.
Mr Justice Jordan delivered the judgment on 12 January 2022, following a retrial limited to liability. The Court of Appeal had ordered that retrial in 2019 while leaving the damages award from the original hearing undisturbed. The High Court’s decision addressed liability; it dismissed the claim.
Mr Keegan, a council tenant, said he slipped on wet mosaic tiles in the open porch of his home at 1 McNeill Drive, Cranmore, on 18 November 2013. He had left a wet mat on his garden gate that morning. It was missing when he returned in the evening. He had consumed five pints that day. The defence did not argue that drinking itself amounted to negligence, but submitted that alcohol was relevant to the care he took and the reliability of his account.
The judge found that Mr Keegan did slip and fall while entering his home and suffered a significant left ankle injury. But he could not determine the precise mechanism of the fall. The accounts given at different times varied, although the judge said he did not doubt Mr Keegan’s honesty.
The dispute centred on whether the tiles were dangerously slippery when wet. The plaintiff’s engineer considered them unsuitable for an exposed porch. The council’s engineer measured a medium slip risk, at the safer end of that category. A materials science expert called by the council concluded that the unglazed terracotta tiles had good to very good slip resistance and were appropriate for wet conditions. The judge accepted that opinion and said field tests were less reliable than laboratory testing.
The court also found there was no record of Mr Keegan or other residents complaining about those tiles. It concluded that the tiles did not pose a danger and that the council had not failed to take reasonable care in their design, installation or continued use. The judge said Mr Keegan had not complained about the tiles or asked for them to be replaced.
Separately, the judge held that Mr Keegan was an occupier of the home he rented, not a visitor to it under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1995. The council also retained some control over the property, making it an occupier. The Act did not provide a cause of action by one occupier against another. The judge noted that a claim under the Housing Act 1966 had not been pursued and said the evidence would not have established a breach under that Act.
The court concluded that liability had not been proved and dismissed the claim. It said it would hear any application arising on 14 January 2022.