The High Court dismissed a personal injury claim brought by a visitor who fractured his right leg after slipping on a grassy slope at a Citywest business park. The court found that the defendants had provided a safe means of access and that the accident happened because the plaintiff chose not to use it.
The plaintiff was visiting Unit 4027, occupied by BT Communications (Ireland) Limited and owned by Davy Hickey Properties Limited, for work-related business on 26 August 2011. He had travelled to the premises by Luas. At about 9am, he crossed a level grassy area and began descending an embankment towards the car park. The grass was dewy. He slipped and fractured his right tibia.
The plaintiff argued that the slope was an unsafe route and that the defendants should have provided a pedestrian path or warning signs. His engineer criticised the access arrangements and said the driveway mixed pedestrian and vehicle traffic. The defendants said the driveway from Kingswood Road was the designated access and was safe for visitors. They also disputed that the slope was an established pedestrian route.
The judge found that the plaintiff had used the driveway on an earlier visit and knew it was the designated entrance. The court rejected his account of a carved-out path across the grass and found no evidence that the defendants knew people were using the slope to enter or leave the premises. It also found that the plaintiff’s engineer had incorrectly represented a map as showing a route through neighbouring Citadel premises to Telecity.
Under the Occupiers Liability Act 1995, the court concluded that the defendants had taken reasonable care by providing a proper means of access. It found that the absence of warning signs did not cause the accident, given the plaintiff knew where the designated entrance was and had previously used the slope as a shortcut.
The court also rejected the claim under section 15 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. It held that the defendants had provided a safe means of access and that the statutory duty was not absolute. The court said the longer route from the Luas stop was inconvenient but did not amount to a breach of duty. It found there was no evidence requiring the defendants to carry out a risk assessment.
The judge dismissed the case against both defendants, finding that the plaintiff was fully responsible for his injuries.