The High Court held the Health Service Executive liable for 75% of the damages awarded to a household assistant who suffered a spinal fracture after falling while cleaning a shower at St. Joseph’s, Ferryhouse, Clonmel. The court attributed 25% of liability to the worker, finding that she had been careless in backing into an obstacle she had placed in her path.
The accident happened on 27 July 2010. The worker was cleaning a shower room with bleach and kept its door open for ventilation and space to scrub. The door’s self-closing mechanism no longer worked. She used a long-handled mop to prop it open, a method the judgment found had been regularly used by staff to hold doors open over a long period.
As she backed away from the shower, her heel caught on the raised doorstep. The court found that the mop handle then obstructed her recovery of balance, and she fell backwards into a wall across the corridor. She suffered a wedge fracture to a thoracic vertebra and injuries affecting her left shoulder and neck.
The judge rejected two of the worker’s criticisms: that the 2.5-inch doorstep should have been lower, and that the employer should have warned staff about it. The court found the step visible and concluded that a one-inch step could have posed a greater tripping risk.
But the court found that the employer had condoned a dangerous method of propping doors open and had failed to address it in its risk assessments. It held that this breached the employer’s statutory duties under sections 8 and 19 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, as well as its common-law duty of care. The judge treated the worker’s use of the established method as part of the employer’s breach, while finding her subsequent inattention contributed to the fall. Liability was apportioned 75% to the HSE and 25% to the worker.
The court assessed general damages at €75,000 and recorded agreed special damages of €5,000, making total damages of €80,000. The worker was awarded €60,000 after the liability apportionment.
The HSE also applied to dismiss the claim under section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, alleging that the worker knowingly gave misleading information about earlier medical complaints. The judge dismissed the application, finding that inaccuracies in her replies resulted from forgotten minor complaints and that she had not intended to mislead the court. The judgment also said the claim did not support additional general damages for the upset caused by the defence of the proceedings.