659 / 736
Plaintiff cannot recover for fall on
old staircase in castle
In July 1965, the public on payment of 2/6 each,
was admitted to the interior of Slane Castle, Co. Meath:
the proceeds were to be divided evently between the
Math Hunt and the Conquer Cancer Campaign. An
effort was made to control admission by division into
parties of 30 persons each; each party was conducted
through the various parts of .the castle, nad this included
the ascent of the main staircase, which was 180 years
old. During the course of the visit, a portion of the
second flight of this staircase gave way while about 30
persons were using it causing injury to the plaintiff and
other persons. The plaintiff contended she was an invitee
to whom
the defendants owed a duty of care. This
staircase had previously carried up to 40 persons at one
time, yet some, of the evidence established
that the
stairs could not cater for this number in safety. But
there was no agreement as to how this structural failure
had occurred : briefly the evidence for the plaintiff was
that the failure was due to the inadequacy and unsuit-
ability of the limestone material used in the 17 steps
with the result that the presence of a number of people
on any one step created the danger of breaking the
step : the step had broken by reason of excessive tension.
At
the close of plaintiff's evidence,
the defendants
argued that the case ought
to have been withdrawn
from the jury, for the reason that the defendants were
negligent,
in view of its past history in not having
inspected the staircase beforehand.
Hency J. declined to do
this :
one could contend
that the fact that there had never been an accident there
before was sufficient
to excuse a person from taking
reasonable
precautions. At
the
end
of
the
case,
the
jury
in
reply
to
a quastion
did
not accept
that the plaintiff was injured through want of reasonable
care on the part of the proprietor to see that the stairs
were reasonably safe for plaintiff. From this answer, the
jury apparently acquitted the defendants from the fact
that even if an inspection had taken place, the report
would have justified
them in organising
these visits.
The plaintiff had contended that the defendants had
failed in their duty to see that the staircase was reason
ably safe. The defendants had given evidence that large
groups of people had come to the house from time to
time and had used the staircase without mishap :
there
was nothing to alert the mind of a reasonable man to
any real danger, and this could not have been discovered
on inspection.
The
Supreme
Court
(O'Dalaigh
C.J.,
Budd,
Fitzgerald and McLoughlin J.J.—Walsh J. dissenting) —
accordingly held that the plaintiff's appeal from
the
verdict of Henchy J. and- a iury finding that there was
no negligence on the part of the defendants should be
dismissed.
[Collier v The Earl of Mount Charles and others—
unreported—Supreme Court—19 December 1969.]
NUISANCE
Injunction granted to restrain noise in dance hall and
noise from parked motor cars at night.
(1) To cover the nuisance caused by the noise from
Plaintiff and his wife seek full injunction :—
motor cars and dancers departing from a dancehall and
speaking loudly in the early hours of the morning. This
was granted on the ground that the noise of the motor
cars alone was calculated to awaken the sleep of normal
people.
(2) To prevent objectionable and loud noises from
escaping from the Las Vegas Dance Hall, Templemore,
Co. Tipperary, which was an intolerable nuisance. This
hall should have been built in a manner in which the
noise would have been contained. The nuisance was
aggravated by the defendant's arrogant and persistent
disregard of plaintiff's complaints, and by the fact that
defendant had done .nothing to abate the nuisance. The
rhythmic noise of the band was undoubtedly capable of
causing
irritation, which
deliberately gained
in
in
tensity. Noises which pass unnoticed in daylight mav
cause considerable annoyance at night. Accordingly, as
this noise was continuing wantonly to invade the plain
tiff's house, it will have to be abated.
Teevan J. accordingly granted a continuing injunction
to the plaintiff.
[Mullins
v
Hynes—unreported—Teevan
J.—24
February 1969.]
Practice and Procedure
See Distillers
(Bio-Chemicals) Ltd. v Thompson;
Privy Council;
The Times;
20 January 1971.
Where in a matrimonial case justices wish to dismiss
a complaint at the of the complainant's case, they must
first invite complainant or his repreentative to address
the court.
[Mayes v Mayes—Probate Divorce and Admiralty
Division—
The Times—
15 January 1971.]
ROAD TRAFFIC ACT
Leave to Execute against Insurance Company
Plaintiff
recovers £1,846 damages and costs
for
personal injuries caused by the driving of a motor car
in Dame Street, Dublin in July 1954—Judgment un
satisfied—Plaintiff applies to High Court for leave to
execute judgment against an insurance company under
Section 78 of the Road Traffic Act 1933—Insurance
policy limited use of car to defendant's business and for
social, domestic and pleasure purposes—Murnaghan J.
refused the application on the ground that burden of
proof of establishing that the car was being used within
the limitations of use at the time of the accident rested
on the claimant—The defendant appeals to the Supreme
Court — First case under Section 78 to come before
appellate Court—Lavery J., giving judgment, held that
universal cover is not given with exceptions which the
grantor of the indemnity must establish, but only if
the cover is given in the Heht of the actual covering
words in the policy. The claimant must also establish
199