Thomas v. Leitrim County Council [2001] IESC 19; [2001] 2 ILRM 385 (7th March, 2001)

Thomas v. Leitrim County Council [2001] IESC 19; [2001] 2 ILRM 385 (7th March, 2001)

The plaintiff was a licencee, not an invitee, as her presence did not confer a material benefit on the defendant. The defendant failed to act with reasonable diligence to prevent the terrain from misleading the plaintiff, but the plaintiff's decision to descend a steep, obviously dangerous bank when she could have retraced her steps was the greater cause of her injury. Liability was apportioned two-thirds to the plaintiff and one-third to the defendant.

Citation
[2001] IESC 19
Parties
Plaintiff: Ann Thomas; Defendant: Leitrim County Council
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Tort Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part; liability apportioned two-thirds to plaintiff, one-third to defendant.
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability, Contributory Negligence, Invitee Vs Licencee Status, Duty of Care, Apportionment of Liability
Tort Law Occupiers' Liability Contributory Negligence Invitee Vs Licencee Status Duty of Care Apportionment of Liability

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

Parties

Ann Thomas

Plaintiff

Leitrim County Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Tort Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was an invitee or licencee on the defendant's land
  2. 2 Whether the defendant breached its duty of care to the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent and to what extent

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was a licencee, not an invitee, as her presence did not confer a material benefit on the defendant. The defendant failed to act with reasonable diligence to prevent the terrain from misleading the plaintiff, but the plaintiff's decision to descend a steep, obviously dangerous bank when she could have retraced her steps was the greater cause of her injury. Liability was apportioned two-thirds to the plaintiff and one-third to the defendant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part; liability apportioned two-thirds to plaintiff, one-third to defendant.

Orders

  • Plaintiff found to be a licencee, not an invitee.
  • Liability apportioned: two-thirds to plaintiff, one-third to defendant.