The Court of Appeal has allowed Dunnes Stores’ appeal and dismissed a woman’s claim over burns she suffered when a glass jug shattered as she made tea. It also dismissed her cross-appeal against a High Court finding that she was 25% responsible for the accident.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Noonan on 20 January 2021, overturns the High Court’s finding that Dunnes was negligent for selling the jug without a warning label. The Court of Appeal also rejected the plaintiff’s claims in contract and breach of statutory duty. It proposed that Dunnes receive its costs in both courts, subject to the plaintiff applying within 14 days for a further hearing on costs. The judgment does not record a final costs order.
The plaintiff bought the €10 jug at Dunnes’ Blanchardstown store in December 2015. The next morning, she poured very hot water into it and it shattered, burning her legs. The High Court had awarded €75,000 in general damages and €844.96 in special damages, reduced for contributory negligence to a net award of €56,833.72.
The High Court found that the jug she bought had no warning, and that Dunnes should have anticipated that customers from other countries might use a glass jug to make tea. It considered that the manufacturer had intended warnings to be attached and faulted Dunnes for having no system to check for them.
The Court of Appeal found that the evidence did not support a contractual requirement for a warning label on the jugs or an obligation on Dunnes to inspect for one. Dunnes’ buyer testified that the company had not requested a warning label and that an order form’s reference to a required care label was an error for homeware. The appeal court said the presence of labels on some jugs did not establish a requirement for the Irish market.
The court also held that the evidence did not establish a duty on Dunnes to warn against the use made of the jug. The plaintiff had said that tea was normally made in teapots in Ireland and that she knew this. The court noted that she could have asked store staff whether the jug was suitable. It concluded that the use of the ordinary glass jug for very hot water was not a use that could reasonably be expected, and that the High Court was wrong to find negligence.
The High Court’s contributory-negligence finding was not the final outcome: the Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff’s cross-appeal and her claim, leaving no damages award in her favour under the appeal judgment.