The High Court dismissed a Dunnes Stores employee’s personal injury claim after finding that he had not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the store’s alleged failures caused his fall.
Kieran Fagan said he slipped shortly after 10.11am on 29 April 2014 in a vestibule at the supermarket’s Cornelscourt premises in Co Dublin. He worked as a hygiene operative in the grocery department. The store disputed liability and alleged contributory negligence. The parties had agreed special damages of €6,672.46, but the court did not assess damages because it dismissed the claim on liability.
Mr Justice Bernard J. Barton accepted Fagan’s account that he fell heavily on his back and that his clothes were wet. The judge found it most likely that he had stepped on a viscous liquid, rather than fruit, a vegetable or yoghurt. He also found the spill was probably deposited in the minute after Fagan’s final exit from the vestibule and most likely shortly before he re-entered. Fagan had said he saw nothing on the floor when he left and would have dealt with any spill he noticed.
The vestibule’s concrete floor had been removed before engineers could test its slip resistance. The engineers agreed that concrete generally provides good slip resistance, including when wet. CCTV did not show the vestibule interior, but recorded staff and suppliers moving through it. The judge noted that seven journeys were made through the area in the final minute before the accident, with no evidence that anyone else had difficulty crossing the floor.
Fagan argued that Dunnes Stores had failed to provide a safe system and place of work, including by not assigning responsibility for inspecting the vestibule, incorporating it into a designated cleaning area, or warning of the danger. The store argued that Fagan had been trained to watch for spillages and that the likely timing of the spill meant it could not reasonably have prevented the accident.
The judge noted that no vestibule-specific risk assessment had been carried out. However, he was not satisfied that this or the other alleged shortcomings caused the accident. Given his findings that Fagan had not seen a spill when he last left and that it probably occurred within a minute of his return, the judge said holding the store liable would amount to treating it as an insurer of his safety.
The court found Fagan had not discharged his burden of proof. It therefore did not consider contributory negligence or assess his injuries. The judge said the claim must be dismissed, and ordered accordingly.