The High Court has assessed general damages at €275,000 for a prisoner who lost parts of four fingers in a workshop accident at Wheatfield Prison, but ordered the amount reduced by 70% because of his contributory negligence.
Mr Justice Bernard Barton found that the prisoner acted with subjective recklessness when he pressed the foot pedal of a GEKA cropping machine while his upturned left hand was in the path of its blade. The court said he had been trained to use the machine, knew its purpose and understood the danger posed by the exposed blade after its safety guide-guard had been removed.
The accident happened in 2008. The prisoner’s index, middle and ring fingers were initially re-implanted, but the re-implanted sections later failed. The little finger was also amputated. The court accepted medical evidence that the injuries caused lasting disfigurement, substantial loss of hand function, pain and vocational difficulties. It found further reconstructive surgery and prosthetics were not realistic options for him.
The judgment followed a Court of Appeal decision remitting the case to the High Court after an earlier dismissal of the claim. The Court of Appeal had already determined liability in the prisoner’s favour. The resumed hearing addressed contributory negligence, apportionment of fault and damages; it did not reconsider the liability decision.
The defendants argued that the prisoner’s actions warranted a much larger share of responsibility. His counsel argued that the court could not infer contributory negligence after rejecting the prisoner’s account of how the accident happened, and that any share attributed to him should be limited. The judge rejected the argument that a finding was legally impossible, concluding from the evidence and earlier findings that the prisoner knowingly ran a serious risk of injury.
The court also reaffirmed that the defendants’ failures contributed to the accident. It had previously found negligence and breaches of workplace safety law, including failures concerning risk assessment and safety requirements for machinery. In apportioning fault, the judge said the defendants’ failures to lock out the machine, ensure the guard was fitted or keep an officer present were blameworthy. He assigned 70% of the fault to the prisoner and 30% to the defendants.
The judge refused the prisoner’s application for aggravated damages, finding that the defendants’ earlier application to dismiss the claim under section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 was not unreasonable in the circumstances. With no claim for special damages, the court ordered judgment for the assessed general damages less 70%.