The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by three defendants in a personal injuries case arising from a woman’s finger injury at a pub in Dunkineely, County Donegal. It set aside the High Court order that had awarded her €75,000 in general damages, reduced by 25% for contributory negligence.
The accident happened at about 2.30am on 6 August 2012, as the woman left McLaughlin’s Bar through a separate door onto Main Street. She said the door slammed shut while her left hand was on its edge, crushing her little finger. The injury ultimately led to the tip being amputated.
At trial, the plaintiff maintained that there had been no door closer or handle on the door and that the corridor was unlit. The High Court judge rejected those claims, finding that the door had both a closer and a handle, and that the corridor light was on. The judge nevertheless found the defendants negligent because the closer had not been maintained and was probably not functioning correctly. The judge also found no duty to escort the plaintiff off the premises.
The Court of Appeal said the claim as originally pleaded was that there was no closer and that one should have been fitted. The court noted that the plaintiff’s case did not establish any duty to install a closer. Although further particulars raising safe escort and lighting issues were delivered two days before the trial, the court found no evidence establishing a duty to escort the plaintiff. It also noted that the trial judge had found the corridor light was on and that the plaintiff’s engineer had withdrawn from offering an expert view on whether supervision was required.
The court held that the High Court had found the defendants liable on a failure to maintain the closer, a case that had not been pleaded or advanced by the plaintiff. The fact that a properly functioning closer might have prevented the accident did not, by itself, establish negligence. The court said the cause of the door slamming had never been established.
It allowed the defendants’ appeal, dismissed the plaintiff’s cross-appeal and set aside the High Court order. The court’s provisional view was that the defendants should receive the costs of the appeal and High Court proceedings. The plaintiff was given 14 days to seek a brief supplemental hearing on costs; otherwise, an order in those proposed terms would be made.