The Court of Appeal has dismissed Ryanair Designated Activity Company’s appeal and a cross-appeal by cabin crew member Fiona Nangle in a personal injury case arising from a fall on a flight in February 2018.
The High Court had found in Ms Nangle’s favour after she slipped while moving from the front door area towards the galley shortly after a Dublin-to-Warsaw flight took off. She suffered a displaced fracture of her right humerus, which required surgery. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s assessment of €70,000 in general damages. It said the trial judge was entitled to account for a significant scar as well as the fracture and recovery. The appellate judgment records the agreed special damages as €14,790 and the High Court decree as €84,790.
The High Court inferred that de-icing fluid had been tracked into the aircraft and caused the slip. The Court of Appeal found that inference was reasonably open on the evidence, including Ms Nangle’s account, expert evidence about the fluid’s drying residue, and evidence of three earlier crew slip accidents involving de-icing fluid. The court said it could not interfere with the trial judge’s finding that she slipped rather than tripped.
Ryanair also challenged the trial judge’s handling of evidence about Dublin Airport Authority cleaning operations after de-icing. The Court of Appeal said the proposed evidence had not been properly pleaded or disclosed before trial, and its introduction would have unfairly taken the plaintiff by surprise. It agreed that the trial judge made a clear error by later referring to the cleaning evidence after ruling it out. However, it said that error caused no unfairness to Ryanair because the evidence could only have benefited the company.
The court upheld the finding that Ryanair was negligent in failing to warn cabin crew about the risk of de-icing fluid being tracked into aircraft. It also agreed that there was no contributory negligence by Ms Nangle. Her cross-appeal argued that Ryanair should also have been found negligent for failing to take steps to reduce the hazard after earlier incidents. The court accepted that failure to carry out a risk assessment breached a statutory duty, but said the evidence did not establish what further practical step Ryanair should have taken.
The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed on liability and damages. The court said Ms Nangle should receive the costs of the appeal, while making no order for costs on the cross-appeal. It allowed both sides 14 days to make written submissions on a different costs order, with 14 days for any response.