Helen Power v Waterford City and County Council (Approved) [2020] IECA 196 (23 July 2020)

Helen Power v Waterford City and County Council (Approved) [2020] IECA 196 (23 July 2020)

The plaintiff's injury was not caused by any negligence in the placement or design of the speed bumps or the absence of parking restrictions, but rather by her own decision to walk on the road instead of the footpath and her failure to look where she was going. There was no causal link between the alleged negligence and the accident. The appeal is allowed and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Citation
[2020] IECA 196
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Helen Power; Defendant/appellant: Waterford City and County Council
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Liability
Outcome
Appeal allowed; plaintiff's claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Causation, Public Authority Liability, Road Safety
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Duty of Care Causation Public Authority Liability Road Safety

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Helen Power

Plaintiff/respondent

Waterford City and County Council

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant local authority was liable in negligence for the plaintiff's injury caused by tripping on speed bumps near a pedestrian crossing
  2. 2 Whether the placement and design of speed bumps constituted a breach of duty of care to pedestrians
  3. 3 Whether causation was established between the alleged negligence and the plaintiff's injury

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's injury was not caused by any negligence in the placement or design of the speed bumps or the absence of parking restrictions, but rather by her own decision to walk on the road instead of the footpath and her failure to look where she was going. There was no causal link between the alleged negligence and the accident. The appeal is allowed and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; plaintiff's claim dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant entitled to recover costs of the appeal and the proceedings below, subject to submissions by the respondent within fourteen days