The High Court found Bus Éireann liable for a bus driver’s injuries after an unidentified assailant boarded his bus in Mayfield and stabbed him with a syringe before grabbing a bag of money from the driver’s cab. The court attributed 15% contributory negligence to the driver and awarded him €75,000 in general damages, plus special damages, with the total discounted by 15%.
The assault happened on the evening of 6 April 2018. CCTV showed the protective screen between the passenger area and the cab was raised, allowing the assailant to reach the driver. The judge said the assault unfolded too quickly for the driver to close it in time. She found that keeping the screen down and locked would likely have prevented the attack.
The driver testified that he always drove with the screen raised because it was difficult, though not impossible, to hear passengers when it was down. He had been shown how to operate it and told it was for his safety, but said he was never instructed to keep it down at particular times or places, or reprimanded for leaving it raised. The court found no evidence that the company’s policy of keeping the screen closed had been communicated to him.
The judge said the risk of assaults on drivers was foreseeable, referring to earlier violence recorded by the company and a prior Supreme Court case involving a similar attack. She found that providing a screen and showing the driver how to use it were not enough: the company should also have communicated, implemented and supervised its policy, and addressed the risk in safety planning. The judgment found the company had failed in its common law and statutory duties to provide a safe place of work so far as reasonably practicable.
The driver’s injuries included post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety about possible HIV and hepatitis infection, and continuing difficulties at work and in personal relationships. The judge awarded €70,000 for the psychological injuries and consequences of the incident, and €5,000 for future pain and suffering. She rejected the company’s position that the driver had failed to mitigate his losses, noting that he stopped antidepressants on the company’s chief medical officer’s advice and did not receive further CBT after the company limited its funding to ten sessions.
The court’s indicative view was that costs should follow the event, with the driver’s costs to be adjudicated if the parties could not agree. The judge said she would consider further submissions if either party sought a different costs order.