TOPIC 9: CASE LAW

Question 1

McCarthy v Twomey [2019] IEHC 719

Answer 1

unsuccessful claim -High Court found that the plaintiff was not an employee.

• not always though

Question 2

Hough v Base Metals Ltd, unreported, Supreme Court, 8 December 1967

Answer 2

Improper conduct

Employee placed a gas fire beside other employees
Supervisor was not aware or informed of what was happening
In jumping away, one of them injured themselves
Health and safety claim was unusual as th supervisor was not informed, that had done everything they could have

Question 3

Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1957] 2 WLR 948

Answer 3

improper conduct

Employee was deliberately tripping up other employees
Supervisor was informed, he was reprimanded on numerous occasions
Someone was injured
Employer breached their duty of care

Question 4

Deegan v Langan [1966] 1 IR 373

Answer 4

general duties of employers

Carpenter was using a particular type of nail that if it hit by a hammer it was disintegrate
This happened and he lost sight in one of his eyes
Employer failed to provide safe equipment

Question 5

Heeney v Dublin Corporation Unreported, High Court, 16th May 1991

Answer 5

general duties of employers

Fire crew provided with faulty breathing equipment
Breach of duty of care

Question 6

Burke v John Paul & Company Ltd [1967] IR 277

Answer 6

general duties of employers

Employers used cutting equipment
Employer needed to periodically sharpen them
Employee had to use excessive force due to them benign blunt and therefor got a hernia

Question 7

Mackay v Iarnród Éireann [2001] IEHC 96

Answer 7

general duties of employers + safe place of work

Train mechanics had to repair trains in an area that was not well ventilated
Employee exposed to diesel fumes
Breach of legislation

Question 8

Marsella v J & P Construction Ltd [2004] IEHC 369

Answer 8

general duties of employers

Employee fell from scaffolding - unsafe for use - breach of legislation

Question 9

Donegal County Council v The Health and Safety Authority [2010] IEHC 286

Answer 9

defining place of work

High Court considered the scope of the definition of “place of work“.
A driver was killed in an accident when a car left a roadway that was newly tarred and covered in loose chippings. The HSA wanted to investigate the roadway & the accident.
Donegal County Council accepted that the section of the roadway covered in loose chippings was ‘a place of work for the duration of the works in progress’. However, it claimed that it no longer was a place of work when the workmen left the site at 11am, and traffic did not resume on both directions until 3pm.
Kearns P. held that this section of the roadway ceased to be a place of work when the workmen completed the work at 11am that morning.

Question 10

Kerry County Council v The Health and Safety Authority [2013] IEHC 140

Answer 10

defining place of work

Kerry County Council commenced construction works on a road in Rathmore to install traffic calming measures. This work was scheduled to last for 20 weeks.
A traffic management plan was put into operation on a Friday afternoon for the weekend during which work would not be carried out – the road was re-opened to traffic, however it was marked out with cones etc to indicate that road works were being carried out.
A driver collided into cones located at the front of a traffic island under construction in the middle of the road about 10pm that Friday night.
The driver lost control of the car which left the road, causing fatal injuries.
HSA wanted to investigate the roadway & the accident.
Kerry County Council contended that the HSA had no authority to investigate the accident site as it was not “a place of work” as there were no employees working there at the time of the accident.

Question 11

Guckian v Cully, unreported Supreme Court 23 February 1972

Answer 11

safe place of work

Food production sit e- putting dough into a machine
Had to stand on stool to do so
Fell off stool - employer liable - unsafe workplace
Employee partly liable - stood on a shaky stool.

Question 12

Daly v GPA Ld, unreported High Court 13 February 1998

Answer 12

safe place of work

Employer liable for an employee walking through a glass panel

Question 13

Barclay v An Post [1998] 2 ILRM 385

Answer 13

safe workplace

Postman had back injuries to bend down to foot-level post-boxes
Employer not liable as they provided safety training in relation to this

Question 14

McCanns v Brinks Allied, unreported High Court, 12 May 1992 and [1997] 1 ILRM 461 (Supreme Court)

Answer 14

safe workplace

Cash delivery drivers
One bank - could not park close to the bank
Bank was informed of these risks - they were attacked
No safe system of work - bank was liable - no the first time this happened

Question 15

Rogers v Bus Átha Cliath, Circuit Court, 9 January 2000

Answer 15

safe system of work

Bus drivers have been assaulted on particular routes
Dublin bus were aware of this -implemented safety precautions ie cameras
Driver was attacked - dublin bus not liable - they had taken all steps - so far as reasonably practicable - they were in the process of providing a safe system

Question 16

58 Named Complainants v Goode Concrete Limited, Equality Tribunal DEC-E2008-020

Answer 16

Health and safety training must be in a language that the employees can understand

Question 17

Wretlund v Sweden (2004) 39 EHRR SE5

Answer 17

duties of employee - drug testing

employees at nuclear power plant
Employees protected under multiple trade unions
The employees union did nit have rules around drug testing
No provision in contract about drug testing
Other trade union rules: one week notice required
Failure to provide a sample implied toxication
No laws in Sweden regarding frug testing
She claimed she was not legally obliged - not express term, or implied term of contract (no collective bargaining agreement) - disproportionate requirement in relation to her role
ECHR - dismissed her claim due to the nature of the place she was working

Question 18

Coffey v. Kavanagh [2012] IESC 19

Answer 18

Supreme Court finds on appeal from High Court that employee was 25% responsible for own injury in workplace, and reduced award from €54,900 to €44,175.

Question 19

Bowell v Dunnes Stores [2015] IEHC 613

Answer 19

High Court found that the plaintiff (employee) was guilty of contributory negligence (30% liable)

Question 20

Van Dalsen v Davy Hickey Properties Ltd [2016] IEHC 717

Answer 20

employees duties

employee accessed areas of workplace that were not permitted

court held this was not the employees responsibility

Question 21

Edwards v National Coal Board [1949]

Answer 21

reasonably practical

links this to a question of risk. Where the risk is low, a person will have done what is ‘reasonably practicable’ even if they failed to do something that was technically possible if that ‘something’ was disproportionately expensive when compared with the risk involved.
Failed / collapsed mines
What obligation was on the employer? What is reasonably practical
What is the likelihood of an accident occurring
There were no roof supports - necessary under legislation

Question 22

Boyle v Marathon Petroleum (Irl) Ltd. [1995]

Answer 22

Boyle was employed by the company on the Kinsale offshore gas platform
Mr Boyle was cleaning the bottom floor of the platform when he struck his head on one of the girders and jerked his neck backwards.
The High Court concluded that on balance the insertion of the middle floor was the provision of a workplace that was safe, ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’, and that any alternatives suggest by the plaintiff’s engineers would be without some inherent dangers similar to those in the existing system.

Question 23

Hunt v Sutton Group Incentive Realty Inc.

Answer 23

Christmas party

Company’s duty extended to ensuring she would not become intoxicated to such an extent that her ability to drive home would be adversely affected. She was awarded damages of around $288,104 plus interest.\