Newman -v- Cogan & Anor [2017] IECA 176 (16 June 2017)

Newman -v- Cogan & Anor [2017] IECA 176 (16 June 2017)

The duty of care owed by an occupier who undertakes a repair is to be measured by the objective standard of a reasonably competent tradesman. The uncontested expert evidence was that no reasonably competent tradesman would have installed ordinary glass in the door in 2000/2001. The trial judge erred by applying a subjective standard and by making unsupported findings about the occupier's competence. The defendants were in breach of their duty under s.3(2) of the 1995 Act and are liable for the plaintiff's injuries.

Citation
[2017] IECA 176
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Elaine Newman; Defendant/respondent: Patrick Cogan; Defendant/respondent: Marie Cogan
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability, Negligence, Standard of Care, Personal Injury, Duty of Care
Tort Law Occupiers' Liability Negligence Standard of Care Personal Injury Duty of Care

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

Parties

Elaine Newman

Plaintiff/appellant

Patrick Cogan

Defendant/respondent

Marie Cogan

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the standard of care owed by an occupier who undertakes DIY repairs resulting in injury to a visitor?
  2. 2 Did the defendants breach their duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 by installing ordinary glass in a door?

Ratio Decidendi

The duty of care owed by an occupier who undertakes a repair is to be measured by the objective standard of a reasonably competent tradesman. The uncontested expert evidence was that no reasonably competent tradesman would have installed ordinary glass in the door in 2000/2001. The trial judge erred by applying a subjective standard and by making unsupported findings about the occupier's competence. The defendants were in breach of their duty under s.3(2) of the 1995 Act and are liable for the plaintiff's injuries.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • High Court decision set aside
  • Defendants found liable for plaintiff's injuries