The High Court has rejected Ciara O’Connell’s negligence claim against Breanagh Catering Limited, trading as Copper Face Jacks, over an accident at the Dublin nightclub in August 2006. Mr Justice Ryan found that the floor was wet where Ms O’Connell lay after the fall, but said there was no evidence that a slippery floor caused it. He made no finding of negligence against the defendant.
Ms O’Connell, then 26 and a sales representative, was dancing with work colleague Noel Humphries in the club’s downstairs dance area. They were moving backwards close together, with her hands on his forearms, when Mr Humphries fell on top of her. She struck the ground and suffered a severe fracture to her left arm, which required surgery. The judgment said she later had some restricted movement, significant scarring and visible metalwork from the repair.
The judge considered evidence that the floor was wet. Ms O’Connell’s sister, Bronagh, said her jeans were wet at hospital. Colleagues John Houston and Mark Byrne said their trouser knees were wet after kneeling beside her, while Mr Humphries said his hands felt wet after he got up, although he was unsure whether this was perspiration or floor moisture. Security staff acknowledged that wetness was possible, while saying they monitored the floor. The judge concluded that the area where Ms O’Connell was lying was wet, but said that did not establish that the spot where Mr Humphries fell was wet.
The plaintiff’s consulting engineer, J.D. Kirwan Browne, tested the floor in 2009. He found that the pine boards, which made up most of the dance floor, were safe when wet; the hardwood inserts could be slippery when wet. The judge said video footage did not place Ms O’Connell or Mr Humphries near a hardwood strip shortly before the accident, and there was no evidence that a relevant strip was wet.
The judge also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the principle of res ipsa loquitur applied. Although the defendant generally controlled the premises and floor, the dancing activity and the way the pair moved were not under its control, he said. The judge considered that the fall could have happened without a slippery floor: dancing backwards in close proximity carried a risk of losing footing, though he did not consider their dancing reckless or dangerous.
The court concluded that the injuries could not be attributed to a slippery floor maintained by the defendant and found no basis for negligence. The judgment does not record a damages award or other order.