Judgment: 2012-11-30 · Court archive

High Court dismisses claim over fall at Ballybrack petrol station

The court found that the plaintiff’s fall was not caused by negligence and rejected her account of an oil spill. It also dismissed two substantial claims for expenses that had been abandoned at the hearing.

High Court · [2012] IEHC 495

Who, what, where, when and why

Who

See the report below for the parties involved.

What

The court found that the plaintiff’s fall was not caused by negligence and rejected her account of an oil spill. It also dismissed two substantial claims for expenses that had been abandoned at the hearing.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Ballybrack
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 24 January 2007

    The plaintiff claimed she slipped on oil outside the shop at the station, known as Apple Green, on 24 January 2007. She said she injured her left pelvic and hip area and later developed pain in her left foot. The court recorded that an initial hospital X-ray showed no bony injury, while an MRI about three weeks later showed bruising of the sacrum, described as micro-fracturing of cancellous bone.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court dismissed a woman’s personal-injury action over a fall at a Ballybrack petrol station, finding that the fall was not caused by negligence on the part of the station’s defendant companies.

The High Court dismissed a woman’s personal-injury action over a fall at a Ballybrack petrol station, finding that the fall was not caused by negligence on the part of the station’s defendant companies.

In a judgment delivered on 30 November 2012, Mr Justice O’Neill said he was satisfied there was no oil on the ground where the plaintiff fell. He accepted evidence from the defendants’ manager that staff had a system for dealing with oil spills, no spill had occurred that morning and no complaint had been made.

The plaintiff claimed she slipped on oil outside the shop at the station, known as Apple Green, on 24 January 2007. She said she injured her left pelvic and hip area and later developed pain in her left foot. The court recorded that an initial hospital X-ray showed no bony injury, while an MRI about three weeks later showed bruising of the sacrum, described as micro-fracturing of cancellous bone.

The judge found the plaintiff’s account of the fall and its aftermath unreliable. He accepted the manager’s evidence that staff covered her with a jacket and two umbrellas, offered assistance and called an ambulance in a timely fashion. He also rejected her claim that possessions were stolen while she was on the ground and later returned.

The judgment noted that the plaintiff had claimed €73,490 for nursing or carer assistance over three years and €10,175 for oils and other preparations. Both claims were abandoned when the case came on for hearing. The judge found the nursing-assistance claim had no merit or justification and rejected the plaintiff’s explanation that her solicitor had included it contrary to her instructions. He described that evidence as wholly untruthful.

The court also found no support in the medical reports for the plaintiff’s account that the pelvic injury caused her left-foot condition. O’Neill J concluded that the fall was not caused by negligence by the defendants and dismissed the action. The judgment does not set out any damages award or further order.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review