Judgment: 2017-11-09 · Court archive

Court of Appeal allows shopping centre occupier’s appeal over ankle injury

The court held that a nearby surfaced exit meant the shopping centre operator had met its duty of care, overturning the High Court’s liability finding and award.

Court of Appeal · [2017] IECA 293

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Louise Byrne (Plaintiff)
  • Ardenheath Company Limited
What

The court held that a nearby surfaced exit meant the shopping centre operator had met its duty of care, overturning the High Court’s liability finding and award.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Mountview Shopping Centre
  • Entrance number 4
  • Blanchardstown
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The accident happened on 20 December 2012. Byrne had parked in the centre’s smaller car park and was heading towards a nearby footpath when she fell on a wet, grassy slope of about 31 degrees. The High Court found Ardenheath negligent, while also finding Byrne 40% responsible for her injuries. It awarded her €75,040 after applying that reduction to damages and agreed special damages.

The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by Ardenheath Company Limited against a High Court decision that it was liable for injuries Louise Byrne sustained when she slipped on a grassy bank at Mountview Shopping Centre in Blanchardstown.

The accident happened on 20 December 2012. Byrne had parked in the centre’s smaller car park and was heading towards a nearby footpath when she fell on a wet, grassy slope of about 31 degrees. The High Court found Ardenheath negligent, while also finding Byrne 40% responsible for her injuries. It awarded her €75,040 after applying that reduction to damages and agreed special damages.

Ardenheath challenged both the liability finding and the damages assessment. Its counsel argued that Byrne had chosen a shortcut despite the wet conditions, the steep slope and the availability of a nearby exit. Byrne’s counsel argued that the High Court judge was entitled to accept engineering evidence that the smaller car park needed a pedestrian-only entrance and barriers to deter people from using the slope.

The Court of Appeal said the central issue was whether the High Court had applied the correct standard of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1995. It found that the trial judge had erred in treating the absence of pedestrian-only entrances in the smaller car park, compared with the larger car park, as evidence of a design fault. The court noted that other areas of grass frontage around the larger car park also had no designated pedestrian entrances.

The Court of Appeal said an occupier’s duty is to take reasonable care in all the circumstances, taking account of the care a visitor may reasonably be expected to take for their own safety. It held that Byrne could have used entrance number 4, a nearby surfaced exit shared by vehicles and pedestrians. The court found no evidence that it was unsafe or unsuitable for pedestrians, and said Byrne would have needed to walk only a short distance to reach it.

The court concluded that Ardenheath was entitled to expect an adult visitor to avoid the wet, steep slope, particularly given the kerb and the footwear described in the judgment as offering little grip. It held that the operator had met its statutory duty by providing a safe and nearby exit. The appeal was allowed, overturning the High Court’s finding that Ardenheath was liable. The judgment does not set out a separate order on costs.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review