The High Court dismissed a barman’s claim for damages against his employer after an armed raid at a Sligo pub, finding that the employee had not shown the attack was reasonably foreseeable or that alleged safety failures caused his injuries.
The case concerned a raid in the early hours of 2 April 2001 at Harloes Bar in Maugheraboy, outside Sligo town. The employee, then 19, was working with two colleagues when a man wearing Garda clothing arrived at the door. After the barman let him in, the man pulled down a mask and held a shotgun to the employee’s neck. Two other masked men entered. The workers were tied up and locked in a dark storeroom before they escaped and alerted Gardaí.
The employee sued the bar’s owner, alleging negligence and breach of statutory duty. His complaints included a lack of security training, no risk assessment or required safety notice, and no CCTV. He argued that training could have taught staff to seek identification, switch on outside lights and use the panic button. The employer disputed that such precautions would have prevented the attack, describing the raiders’ method as exceptionally unusual and unforeseeable.
The judge accepted that the employee had suffered greatly, including continuing psychological effects. He also concluded that an employee could sue an employer for breach of duties under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989, provided a causal link between the breach and the injury was established.
The court found that link had not been shown. It reasoned that a safety notice or risk assessment would not reasonably have anticipated a ruse involving a false warning of a Garda visit followed by raiders impersonating Gardaí. The judge also considered it speculative that training about the panic button or outside lights would have changed what happened: the employee believed the men were Gardaí, and he already knew the button was there.
On negligence, the court held that the employee had not established that a reasonable employer should have foreseen this method of entry or that an act or omission by the employer caused the injury. The judge dismissed the claim. The judgment did not award damages to the employee.