The High Court has dismissed a farmer’s personal injury claim against Teagasc over an accident during cattle pregnancy testing at its Grange premises in Dunsany, County Meath.
Myles McDermott was injured on 14 October 2015 when a cow being examined became distressed and fell back onto him after its head gate was loosened. The court heard that a rear restraint bar was available on the cattle crush and would have prevented the cow moving backwards. McDermott had not asked for it and did not usually use it, in part because it would slow the work and reduce the number of cattle he could test in a day.
McDermott’s claim focused on the release of the gate, alleging it was done without warning and before he had moved clear. Teagasc argued that he was an experienced independent contractor and was responsible for his own safety, including by stepping away from the animal and using the restraint bar.
The central factual dispute was whether McDermott had instructed Teagasc assistant Simone McCabe to loosen the gate. McCabe said he told her, “She’s going, loosen the head gate.” She testified that she eased the control lever without fully releasing the animal. McDermott disputed giving that instruction and said he was moving away when the cow fell.
Mr Justice Brian O’Moore accepted McCabe’s account. He cited inconsistencies in McDermott’s evidence about the restraint bar and whether he had previously remained in the crush when gates were loosened. The judge found McDermott was in charge of the testing operation and directed how the assistant worked. In those circumstances, he concluded McCabe acted reasonably in following the instruction and did not breach a duty owed by Teagasc.
The judge also rejected the claim that Teagasc should have insisted on use of the bar, finding it was not reasonably practicable to require that of McDermott given his control of the operation and his reasons for not using it. A separate allegation that the crush design was unsuitable was not pleaded and could not properly proceed; the court also found the evidence did not establish negligence in Teagasc’s use of the equipment.
The court dismissed the claim. It did not decide whether the claim should be assessed under section 12 or section 7 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. The proceedings were listed for mention on 8 November 2022 to address outstanding matters, including costs.