The Supreme Court dismissed Dunnes Stores’ appeal against a finding that it was liable for injuries suffered by Brendan O’Neill after he went to the aid of a security guard during an incident at a shopping centre in Thurles. The appeal concerned liability only; the damages award was not appealed.
The incident happened on 4 July 2002. Security guard Keith Byrne had confronted two youths suspected of taking bottles from the store’s off-licence. After one ran away and was caught, Byrne struggled with him outside the centre. A cleaner called for help, and O’Neill responded. He helped restrain the youth while another youth pushed and kicked at the men.
A garda arrived, and the second youth was told to leave. He later returned with a motorcycle chain and struck O’Neill across the face, fracturing his nose and injuring his back. The Supreme Court judgment records that the trial judge accepted O’Neill’s evidence that Byrne had asked him for help. Dunnes Stores accepted on appeal that this was the factual basis the Court had to use.
The trial judge found the store negligent, citing the single guard on duty, the lack of an effective two-way radio arrangement and Byrne’s handling of the incident. The Supreme Court did not endorse a general rule that stores must have at least two guards, or hold that confronting or pursuing suspected shoplifters was itself negligent. It said the evidence did not establish what security staffing was usual in comparable stores.
Instead, the Court upheld liability on the narrower basis that there was no effective, immediate way for Byrne to contact managers who were working. The radio was of little use because no one had the other unit, and Byrne had to ask a passing cleaner to get help. The Court considered that the lack of a system for contacting available staff was unreasonable.
Dunnes Stores argued that the youths’ criminal acts caused the injuries and that a garda was present by the time of the assault. The Court held that the third party’s violence did not break the causal link: physical injury was a foreseeable risk when a member of the public responded to a guard’s request for help restraining a wrongdoer. It concluded that the store’s failure had created the need to seek public assistance and dismissed the appeal.