Nangle v Ryanair Designated Activity Company (Unapproved) [2023] IECA 118 (15 May 2023)

Nangle v Ryanair Designated Activity Company (Unapproved) [2023] IECA 118 (15 May 2023)

The defendant failed to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the plaintiff's safety at work by not warning of the risk of de-icing fluid being tracked onto the aircraft, a known hazard that had caused previous accidents. The trial judge was entitled to infer the presence of de-icing fluid and prefer the plaintiff's expert evidence. The exclusion of unpleaded DAA cleaning evidence was correct. The quantum of damages was within the appropriate range given the injury and scarring.

Citation
[2023] IECA 118
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Fiona Nangle; Defendant/appellant: Ryanair Designated Activity Company
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
15 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Employer's Liability, Workplace Safety, Pleadings and Disclosure, Quantum of Damages
Tort Law Employment Law Personal Injury Employer's Liability Workplace Safety Pleadings and Disclosure Quantum of Damages

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fiona Nangle

Plaintiff/respondent

Ryanair Designated Activity Company

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's injury due to failure to warn or mitigate the risk of de-icing fluid being tracked onto the aircraft.
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in excluding evidence regarding cleaning operations by Dublin Airport Authority (DAA).
  3. 3 Whether the quantum of damages awarded was appropriate.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the plaintiff's safety at work by not warning of the risk of de-icing fluid being tracked onto the aircraft, a known hazard that had caused previous accidents. The trial judge was entitled to infer the presence of de-icing fluid and prefer the plaintiff's expert evidence. The exclusion of unpleaded DAA cleaning evidence was correct. The quantum of damages was within the appropriate range given the injury and scarring.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff entitled to costs of the appeal.
  • No order as to costs on the cross-appeal.