Folan -v- Ó Corraoin & Ors [2011] IEHC 487 (16 November 2011)

Folan -v- Ó Corraoin & Ors [2011] IEHC 487 (16 November 2011)

The court found that the defendants failed in their duty to provide a safe system of work by not ensuring a ladder was available for safe access to the scaffold, which was a breach of statutory and common law duties. However, the plaintiff was also found contributorily negligent for climbing the scaffold without a ladder and not alerting the foreman or seeking a replacement. The court accepted that the plaintiff suffered a soft tissue injury and some ongoing symptoms, but found that the extent of his incapacity and loss of earnings was exaggerated and not fully attributable to the accident, given his pre-existing conditions and subsequent activities.

Citation
[2011] IEHC 487
Parties
Plaintiff: Bertie (Bartley) Folan; First Named Defendant: Mairtin Ó Corraoin (trading as Mairtin Ó Corraoin Carpentry); Second Named Defendant: Paul Curley; Third Named Defendant: Thomas Curley; Fourth Named Defendant: T. & P. Curley Construction (Galway) Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff with reduction for contributory negligence.
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Workplace Safety, Damages Assessment

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bertie (Bartley) Folan

Plaintiff

Mairtin Ó Corraoin (trading as Mairtin Ó Corraoin Carpentry)

First Named Defendant

Paul Curley

Second Named Defendant

Thomas Curley

Third Named Defendant

T. & P. Curley Construction (Galway) Limited

Fourth Named Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / High Court Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the defendants were negligent and in breach of statutory duty regarding workplace safety and provision of safe access (ladder) to scaffolding.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence by climbing scaffolding without a ladder.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's injuries and losses were caused by the accident or by pre-existing conditions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendants failed in their duty to provide a safe system of work by not ensuring a ladder was available for safe access to the scaffold, which was a breach of statutory and common law duties. However, the plaintiff was also found contributorily negligent for climbing the scaffold without a ladder and not alerting the foreman or seeking a replacement. The court accepted that the plaintiff suffered a soft tissue injury and some ongoing symptoms, but found that the extent of his incapacity and loss of earnings was exaggerated and not fully attributable to the accident, given his pre-existing conditions and subsequent activities.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff with reduction for contributory negligence.

Orders

  • Award of damages to the plaintiff reduced by 50% for contributory negligence.
  • Defendants to pay the reduced sum to the plaintiff.