O' Neill -v- Dunnes Stores O'Neill -v- Dunnes Stores [2010] IESC 380 (02 November 2010)

O' Neill -v- Dunnes Stores O'Neill -v- Dunnes Stores [2010] IESC 380 (02 November 2010)

Dunnes Stores was negligent in failing to provide an adequate system for security staff to obtain assistance, resulting in the security guard having to seek help from a member of the public, which was against procedure. This negligence created a foreseeable risk that a rescuer could be injured, and the criminal act of a third party did not break the chain of causation. The plaintiff, as a rescuer, was entitled to recover damages for injuries sustained while responding to a call for help created by the defendant's negligence.

Citation
[2010] IESC 380
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Brendan O'Neill; Defendant/appellant: Dunnes Stores
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
02 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment for plaintiff affirmed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Rescuer Doctrine, Vicarious Liability, Duty of Care, Causation, Liability for Acts of Third Parties
Tort Law Negligence Rescuer Doctrine Vicarious Liability Duty of Care Causation Liability for Acts of Third Parties

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brendan O'Neill

Plaintiff/respondent

Dunnes Stores

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dunnes Stores was negligent in its security arrangements leading to injury of a rescuer
  2. 2 Whether the absence of expert evidence precluded a finding of negligence
  3. 3 Whether Dunnes Stores was vicariously liable for the acts of its security guard

Ratio Decidendi

Dunnes Stores was negligent in failing to provide an adequate system for security staff to obtain assistance, resulting in the security guard having to seek help from a member of the public, which was against procedure. This negligence created a foreseeable risk that a rescuer could be injured, and the criminal act of a third party did not break the chain of causation. The plaintiff, as a rescuer, was entitled to recover damages for injuries sustained while responding to a call for help created by the defendant's negligence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment for plaintiff affirmed.

Orders

  • Defendant's appeal dismissed
  • Plaintiff's claim for damages upheld