The High Court has dismissed a personal injury claim brought by a man who broke his arm in a fall from playground monkey bars when he was nine years old. The judge found the equipment complied with applicable European safety standards and that the defendants had taken reasonable care in its design, installation and inspection.
The accident happened on 30 August 2014 at a playground on Clancourt Management’s premises. The plaintiff, accompanied by his older brother and younger sister, was using an arched climbing frame when he fell near the highest point of the bars. He fractured his left arm and required surgery. His mother watched from a car outside the playground railing.
The plaintiff alleged that the bars’ zigzag design was dangerous because children had to reach upwards and outwards between bars. His engineer argued that European standards did not cover that design and that a child could not hold a bar with both hands. The defendants’ engineers said the equipment met the standards, including requirements on fall height and handgrip distance, and was designed to offer a controlled physical challenge.
In a judgment delivered on 11 January 2024, Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger accepted the defendants’ engineering evidence. She found the standards applied to both horizontal and arched monkey bars, and that the equipment complied with them. She also found that children could grip the bars with both hands. The judge considered the plaintiff’s engineer’s contrary opinions unconvincing, including his reliance on an unproduced report attributed to a US organisation and unidentified experts.
The court heard that the Council had installed the playground equipment in 2014 and that Clancourt Management carried out weekly inspections. An inspection two days before the fall found no concern. After the plaintiff’s accident and a subsequent incident alleged to have occurred on the same frame, the Council temporarily put a barrier around it. The barrier was removed weeks later, and no modifications were made. The judge said those actions showed responsible oversight, not evidence that the equipment was inherently dangerous.
The court found that the defendants had met their obligations in designing, manufacturing, installing and monitoring the equipment. It dismissed the claim. The judgment did not make a final costs order: the judge gave an indicative view that the defendants were entitled to costs and listed the matter for further submissions on costs and the scope and application of final orders on 23 January 2024.