The High Court found Dunnes Stores liable after a part-time employee received an electric shock while operating a cardboard baling machine, ruling that the employer should have considered adding extra-low-voltage protection as safety technology developed.
In a judgment delivered on 27 October 2015, Mr Justice Binchy awarded the employee €40,000 in general damages and €7,500 for net loss of earnings. The employee had claimed injuries from an incident at work on 20 March 2011. The company denied that the incident and injuries occurred.
The employee told the court he was loading cardboard into the machine when he felt a shock through his right arm. Hospital notes recorded his report of an electric shock to his right hand, numbness in his forearm and tingling in his foot. A consultant who examined him in 2012 found abnormal nerve conduction in his right arm, which he said was consistent with the reported symptoms. A defence consultant found no confirming abnormalities when he examined the employee in 2015 and considered the described numbness inconsistent with the usual nerve distribution.
The baler was tested two days after the reported incident, and no fault was found. The judge accepted that it was in working order and that the employer had a maintenance regime. He also preferred the defence engineer’s evidence on earthing, because the employee’s engineer had not tested the earthing system. The judge was nevertheless satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the employee sustained the injury in the manner alleged. He said the likely explanation was an unexplained, random escape of electricity.
The employee’s engineer said extra-low-voltage protection could reduce or almost eliminate the risk and could be retrofitted for no more than €1,000. The defence engineer agreed that such protection had become more common and would be included in a replacement control device. The judge found the equipment was about ten years old and held that employers must review workplace equipment at reasonable intervals as safety technology advances, where improvements can be made at reasonable cost.
The court found the company had failed to install extra-low-voltage protection, or even consider doing so, and had breached its obligations under Regulations 32 and 76 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations 2007. The judge did not decide whether those regulations impose strict or absolute liability, saying that issue was not argued and was unnecessary to resolve.
The court made no finding supporting the claimed burn to the employee’s right foot. It allowed €7,500 for net lost earnings, attributing about 12 months of the employee’s work absence to the incident.