Judgment: 2018-01-16 · Court archive

High Court dismisses patient’s claim over fall on wet hospital pantry floor

The court found that a cleaner warned Lorraine Walker and that she moved a wet-floor sign before entering the restricted pantry. It dismissed her negligence claim against the hospital and its cleaning contractor.

High Court · [2018] IEHC 21

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Lorraine Walker (Plaintiff)
What

The court found that a cleaner warned Lorraine Walker and that she moved a wet-floor sign before entering the restricted pantry. It dismissed her negligence claim against the hospital and its cleaning contractor.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Tallaght Hospital
  • Tallaght
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court dismissed Lorraine Walker’s personal injuries claim against a hospital and its cleaning contractor, finding neither liable for her fall on a wet pantry floor in January 2006.

The High Court dismissed Lorraine Walker’s personal injuries claim against a hospital and its cleaning contractor, finding neither liable for her fall on a wet pantry floor in January 2006.

Walker said she slipped in the Lynn Ward pantry at Tallaght Hospital while seeking a warm drink to take tablets. She alleged there was no warning sign and that patients had been allowed to use the pantry. The defendants denied liability. The hospital said she had been told not to enter and had ignored a wet-floor warning; the cleaning contractor also alleged contributory negligence.

At the hearing, Walker said the pantry door was open and that she did not recall seeing a yellow warning sign. She accepted she knew of an “authorised personnel only” rule, but said its enforcement was inconsistent. The cleaner, Ms Ivanova, testified that she had placed a yellow sign inside the pantry, warned Walker that the floor had just been cleaned and told her to wait. Ivanova said Walker moved the sign and continued into the room. The court accepted Ivanova’s evidence.

The judge found that patients were not permitted to enter the pantry and that the court had not been shown that the sign on the door was absent on the day. The court also accepted that the hospital needed pantry doors open to allow staff to serve meals. It found that the cleaning system and the cleaner’s actions showed reasonable care. While the engineers agreed the floor was slippery when wet, they also said it was safe when dry and widely used in hospitals.

The judgment distinguished cases cited by Walker, reasoning that she entered an area where patients should not have been, despite the sign and the cleaner’s warning. It concluded that her fall resulted from disregarding the hospital’s system and the warnings. The court found no sustainable case against the hospital’s cleaning system or management, and no breach of the statutory provisions discussed in the judgment.

The court dismissed Walker’s case against both defendants. It made no finding on damages; the claim was dismissed on liability.

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