Desmond v Dunnes Stores Unlimied Company (Unapproved) [2020] IECA 125 (06 May 2020)

Desmond v Dunnes Stores Unlimied Company (Unapproved) [2020] IECA 125 (06 May 2020)

The defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the spillage was not present at the time of the last inspection at 12:58. The trial judge's findings were supported by credible evidence, including the lack of vigilance in inspection, insufficient training, and the absence of evidence that the spillage occurred after the last inspection. The appellate court found no material error in the trial judge's reasoning and upheld the finding of liability against the defendant.

Citation
[2020] IECA 125
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Rose Desmond; Defendant/appellant: Dunnes Stores Unlimited Company
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
06 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Occupiers Liability Act 1995, Personal Injury, Standard of Care, Burden of Proof, Appellate Review
Tort Law Occupiers' Liability Negligence Occupiers Liability Act 1995 Personal Injury Standard of Care Burden of Proof Appellate Review

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rose Desmond

Plaintiff/respondent

Dunnes Stores Unlimited Company

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant discharged the onus of proving a reasonable cleaning system was in place and operated on the day of the accident
  2. 2 Whether the spillage was present at the time of the last inspection by the defendant's staff
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in law or fact in finding liability against the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the spillage was not present at the time of the last inspection at 12:58. The trial judge's findings were supported by credible evidence, including the lack of vigilance in inspection, insufficient training, and the absence of evidence that the spillage occurred after the last inspection. The appellate court found no material error in the trial judge's reasoning and upheld the finding of liability against the defendant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • High Court order awarding €102,000 and costs to the plaintiff affirmed