The High Court dismissed a boy’s negligence claim against Dundalk Town Council after he fell into an uncovered fire hydrant while playing on a grassy area in Cooley Park, Dundalk. The court found that he had not established a breach of the council’s duty of care.
The boy was nine when the accident happened on 23 April 2004. He was playing football with his sister when his left leg went into the hydrant opening, followed by his right leg. He suffered a cut to his shin that required 11 stitches and an ankle fracture. His father took him to hospital.
The judgment records that someone had removed the cast-iron lid before the children went out to play. The court did not determine who removed it or why. The boy’s father said the lid was frequently taken off and left on the grass, and that he would replace it when he noticed. Neither he nor anyone else had told the council about the recurring problem before the accident.
The council was responsible for cutting the grass, which an assistant engineer said was done about every two weeks. The court had no evidence about whether the grass had recently been cut on the day of the accident. The boy’s engineer said the hydrant would be better placed on the adjoining road. Council witnesses gave reasons against that proposal, including the risk of cars blocking access and road debris affecting the hydrant.
The judge accepted that children might play on the grass and that the council and the boy were sufficiently closely connected for a duty of care to arise. But he found the uncovered hydrant hazard resulted from an intervening act by an unknown third party, and that the council could not reasonably have been expected to foresee it on the evidence before him. The hydrant’s design allowed emergency services quick access, and the court found it was not inherently dangerous or dangerously located.
The judge also considered the council’s responsibility for about 2,500 hydrants, its lack of notice about lids being removed, and the importance of keeping hydrants accessible in emergencies. He concluded it would not be reasonable to require the council to ensure every lid was always in place or to inspect every hydrant daily. The claim was dismissed because the boy had failed to establish a breach of duty. The judgment did not award damages.