The High Court found Dunnes Stores liable for a worker’s injuries in a stockroom accident at its Portlaoise supermarket, while finding that the worker’s failure to assess a narrow passageway also contributed to the accident. The court apportioned liability 70% to the employer and 30% to the worker.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Bernard J Barton on 9 October 2015, concerned an accident the court found occurred on 26 February 2010. The worker had initially pleaded that it happened on 5 March, but the judge ruled that a genuine mistake about the date did not defeat a negligence claim where no limitation issue or deceit was involved. He amended the claim to state the date found by the court.
The worker said he tripped over a pack of 7up bottles left on the stockroom floor while carrying another pack through a narrow passage between pallets. Dunnes Stores disputed aspects of his account. The judge accepted the worker’s evidence about how the accident happened and found the passageway was too narrow and unsafe. The employer’s own safety statement directed that aisles be kept clear, and the court found that the stockroom was congested and the employer had failed to comply with that direction.
The judge also found the worker contributorily negligent. He had received safety training, knew he should assess the work area, but entered the passage carrying a pack weighing about 18kg without first checking it. The court concluded that he should have been able to see the bottles on the floor if he had kept a proper lookout.
The court found that the accident caused soft-tissue injuries to the worker’s chest, shoulders and thoracic spine, including a fracture of a rib. It found his neurological symptoms were attributable to diabetes and not to the accident. The judge assessed general damages at €65,000 on full liability. The worker had claimed €48,937.77 in past loss of earnings, reduced to €23,967.64 after deductible social welfare benefits, and the parties had agreed €3,803 for other special damages. The court limited the earnings claim to the period before the worker returned to work in May 2013, saying the precise apportionment and net total would be discussed with counsel. It ordered judgment for the net general and special damages after applying the 70/30 apportionment.