The High Court dismissed a woman’s personal injury claim against Powerscourt Estates Limited over a fall on a steep garden path, finding that the occupier had not breached its duty of care.
The accident happened on 13 September 2014 at Powerscourt House and Gardens. The plaintiff was pushing her mother in a wheelchair when she lost control on a steep slope and fell, injuring her left wrist. She argued that the estate had failed to distinguish the wheelchair-safe route from paths with dangerous slopes. The defendant denied liability, saying a map identified a level route and staff had directed her to use it.
The plaintiff said a receptionist showed her the blue route on a garden map. After visiting the pets’ cemetery, she returned to her mother near a bench and became unsure which path to take. She said there was no sign identifying the safe route at the junction. She did not consult the map in her pocket before taking a path that descended steeply.
A consulting engineer for the plaintiff said the slope had a 16% downgrade, while building regulations provided for a maximum downgrade of 8% for wheelchair users. He considered the path dangerous and said a sign at the junction could have prevented the wrong turn. The defendant’s engineer accepted that the map did not show slopes but said the gradient was obvious at the top of the path.
The judge accepted the receptionist’s evidence that she had warned the plaintiff that the route from the pets’ cemetery towards the Japanese Garden had slopes and told her to stay on the blue route. The judge also found that the map clearly showed the blue route continuing past the cemetery and turning towards Dolphin Pond.
The court concluded that, if confused, the plaintiff should have checked the map. It found that the defendant had supplied clear instructions and an easily understood map, and had therefore met the common duty of care owed to a visitor under the Occupiers Liability Act 1995. The judge observed that a sign might have prevented the accident, but considered the slope readily observable. The claim was dismissed. The judgment decided liability; although the introduction noted that quantum was also in issue, the court made no award of damages.