The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by Templeville Developments Limited against a High Court finding that it was partly liable for injuries suffered by dance teacher Sarah Moloney at its fitness centre in Clontarf Road, Dublin.
The appeal concerned a High Court order made on 25 October 2013 in personal injury proceedings. The High Court had attributed 70% of the fault to the company and 30% to Ms Moloney, and ordered the company to pay her €30,050 in damages, together with costs on the Circuit Court scale. The company challenged both liability and the damages award. Ms Moloney cross-appealed against the finding of contributory negligence.
Ms Moloney was injured on 7 November 2007 while leading a fast-paced dance class on a raised stage area. She said she went over on her ankle and fell. Her pleaded case was that the floor was unfit for the class because its surface had rucked or buckled.
The High Court judge found that the rucking or buckling case could not be sustained. The Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Michael Peart, said the trial judge had made no finding that moisture was present on the floor on the day of the accident, and had no evidence on which to make one. Ms Moloney had not pleaded or given evidence that liquid or moisture caused her fall.
The appeal court rejected the argument that a suggestion during cross-examination about possible liquid in a promotional photograph supported the High Court’s decision. The photograph was not of the stage on the accident date, and the exchange did not establish the floor’s condition that day. The court said the company had been entitled to defend the case that was pleaded: that the floor had rucked or buckled.
Mr Justice Peart said that the fact Ms Moloney fell did not, by itself, establish that the company was negligent. The court concluded that she had not proved her case and that there was no evidential basis for a finding of negligence against the company.
Because of that conclusion, the court did not decide the company’s appeal on the amount of damages or Ms Moloney’s cross-appeal on contributory negligence. It allowed the company’s appeal. The judgment does not state a replacement damages award or set out further orders.