115 / 448
GAZETTE
APRIL/MAY 1996
Personal Injury Judgments:
Liability and Quantum
Brian White -v- Nora
Burke
High Court, Murphy J.
Judgment: April 26, 1995
Basic Facts
and Issues
On April 27, 1990, a
19 year old youth
fractured his ankle
when he fell off a ladder while
cleaning windows for an elderly
widow in Mitchelstown, Co. Cork.
He was paid the sum of £2 for the
service. Was the widow an employer,
an independent contractor, liable as
an occupier, or otherwise liable to
the youth?
Decision
Murphy J held that to fit
the parties into
categories of employer and employee,
or employer and independent
contractor, was "somewhat unreal".
These were "special circumstances"
where an elderly widow sought
domestic assistance from "a very
young and inexperienced man"
almost amounting to a charitable act
on her part.
The judge considered that it was more
realistic to view the case on the
"fundamental and basic principle of
the law of negligence": "every person
is obliged to exercise reasonable care
for the safety of others and for himself
and herself in particular circumstances
which exist where the activities of one
person may impinge on those of
another".
The 19 year old youth himself was
held to be negligent when he mounted
a ladder that was "manifestly unsafe".
In fact, he had so confessed to his
friend.
The elderly widow was negligent,
according to the judge, because she
left the house before she saw how the
task was going to be carried out by the
youth. She owed him a duty to
ensure that he was approaching the
task in a way that was reasonably safe
for him.
Negligence of each party was
apportioned at 50%.
The 19 year old plaintiff
had fractured his ankle;
Injuries
had been detained in Cork Regional
Hospital for twelve days; was
immobilised in plaster for some four
to six weeks during which he was on
crutches and "limped about" for some
six to twelve months afterwards.
Screws had been inserted in his ankle
and a surgeon had identified that there
Quantum
Murphy J calculated
pain and suffering,
and loss of earnings, (although no
loss was specified) "within" a figure
of £20,000. In relation to future
pain and suffering although
"extremely speculative", the plaintiff
would require medication and the
judge added £20,000 under
this heading.
Dr. Eamonn G. Hall
The judgments considered in this
issue are reported in full in a series of
reports of cases entitled
Personal
Injury Judgments Hilary and Easter
Terms 1995
by Doyle Court
Reporters, 2 Arran Quay, Dublin 7.
(Tel. 01-872 2833/286 2097, Fax 01-
872 4486). The
Doyle
series contain
ex tempore
reports of judgments
involving personal injury and are now
in their twelfth volume.
had been arthritic changes in his
ankle that would cause him pain. It
was possible that the arthritic
condition could deteriorate
necessitating surgical intervention in
15 years time involving fusion of the
ankle joint.
Under the heading of reduced
opportunity for employment, although
"extraordinarily difficult" to
determine, Murphy J decided on a
figure of £25,000. As there were no
"special" damages, the total
amounted to £65,000. As the plaintiff
was 50% liable, the total quantum
of damages awarded to him was
£32,500.
99