The Supreme Court dismissed John O’Flaherty’s appeal and affirmed the High Court order rejecting his personal injury claim against O’Mathuna Baid Teoranta.
O’Flaherty, skipper of a fishing vessel, said he fell into an uncovered hold while crossing the defendant’s vessel, Resolution II, at Dingle pier during the night of 23–24 September 1993. He claimed the fall caused personal injuries. The High Court, after a three-day hearing, found that the accident had not happened in the manner he described and that the negligence claim could not be sustained.
On appeal, O’Flaherty argued that the trial judge had wrongly focused on whether he fell over a raised hatch border, or coaming. His case, he submitted, was that after stepping over an obstacle he fell into the hold because its hatch was uncovered. The defendant disputed his account, including whether a coaming was present and whether the fall occurred on its vessel.
The Supreme Court held that the trial judge’s comments had to be read in the context of the full judgment. The coaming was part of O’Flaherty’s account from his direct evidence and was also identified to his engineer before trial. The trial judge accepted evidence from Sean Fitzgerald and Michael Hennessy that the coaming had been removed before the alleged accident. The Supreme Court said there was evidence to support that primary finding.
The court considered the coaming significant to assessing whether the accident happened as claimed. It noted there was no trial evidence that alternative boards were beside the hatch opening. Even if the hatch was uncovered, the trial judge had to decide whether the accident occurred in the manner alleged, based on the evidence presented. He was entitled to find that O’Flaherty’s account was not reliable and to decline to speculate about what had happened.
The Supreme Court did not reconsider the medical evidence, which the judgment described as inconsistent with O’Flaherty’s account. It said the trial judge had correctly applied the plaintiff’s burden to prove his case on the balance of probabilities. As the findings were supported by credible evidence and depended on witness credibility, the court would not interfere.
The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order affirmed. The High Court had dismissed the action, ordered the defendant’s costs against O’Flaherty when taxed, and struck out the issue between the defendant and third party Baid Clos an Daingean Teoranta, with the defendant ordered to pay the third party €2,500 measured costs for that issue.