The Supreme Court has allowed a cattle drover’s appeal against the dismissal of his workplace injury claim, finding his employer liable after two co-workers left their posts and the work system became unsafe. The Court also found the worker 33% contributorily negligent and remitted the case to the High Court for an assessment of damages.
Patrick J. Lynch was injured at Binnacle Limited, trading as Cavan Co-op Mart, on 24 October 2003. A Limousin bullock kicked him in the scrotum as he entered a pen to open a gate. The Supreme Court said the only issue before it was liability; damages remained to be assessed.
At trial, the High Court accepted Lynch’s account of how he was injured, though the judge expressed hesitation about doing so. It dismissed his claim, finding no negligence by the employer. Lynch appealed, arguing that the two drovers’ absence made the system unsafe and that the employer was responsible for their conduct. The employer argued that it had a suitable system, that the simultaneous absence was unforeseeable, and that Lynch’s decision to continue working and enter the pen caused the accident.
The Supreme Court noted that the three-drover system was considered safe when staff followed it: one drover moved cattle into a single pen, while another could open the exit gate from the other side, avoiding the need to enter the pen with the animal. But when the other two drovers were absent, Lynch entered the pen to open the gate. The Court said the system became unsafe in those circumstances. It also noted evidence that employees sometimes left their posts, while there was no evidence of supervision or directions for what should happen if one or more drovers left.
Applying the traditional Salmond test for employers’ vicarious liability, the Court found the drovers’ unauthorised absences were sufficiently connected to their authorised work of moving cattle. Their absences were an improper way of carrying out that work and transformed a safe system into an unsafe one. The judgment said one of the absent drovers was specifically employed to open the weighbridge gate.
The Court nevertheless assigned Lynch part of the responsibility. It said he did not ask either colleague to stay, seek help or stop processing cattle, despite his experience handling cattle. The appeal was allowed on liability, with a 33% deduction for contributory negligence. The Supreme Court did not assess damages; it remitted that matter to the High Court.