McLaughlin -v- McDaid & ors [2015] IEHC 810 (10 December 2015)

McLaughlin -v- McDaid & ors [2015] IEHC 810 (10 December 2015)

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the plaintiff was employed by the defendants and suffered injury in the course of employment due to the defendants' breach of statutory and common law duties by permitting unsupervised minors to operate heavy machinery. The court accepted the plaintiff's explanation for the initial false narrative as being under the influence of the defendants and not for personal gain or to exaggerate injury. The court declined to dismiss the claim under section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, finding that to do so would result in injustice given the egregious conduct of the defendants and the plaintiff's eventual candour.

Citation
[2015] IEHC 810
Parties
Plaintiff: David McLaughlin; Defendant: Damien McDaid; Defendant: Michael McDaid; Defendant: Charles McDaid; Defendant: McDaid and McDaid Quarry
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
10 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Employer Liability / High Court Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Occupiers' Liability, False Evidence Under Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, Contributory Negligence
Tort Law Employment Law Health and Safety Law Employer's Liability Negligence Breach of Statutory Duty Occupiers' Liability False Evidence Under Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 +1 more

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David McLaughlin

Plaintiff

Damien McDaid

Defendant

Michael McDaid

Defendant

Charles McDaid

Defendant

McDaid and McDaid Quarry

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Employer Liability / High Court Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the plaintiff an employee or trespasser at the time of the accident?
  2. 2 Did the defendants breach statutory and/or common law duties?
  3. 3 Was the plaintiff's injury caused by the defendants' negligence or breach of duty?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the plaintiff was employed by the defendants and suffered injury in the course of employment due to the defendants' breach of statutory and common law duties by permitting unsupervised minors to operate heavy machinery. The court accepted the plaintiff's explanation for the initial false narrative as being under the influence of the defendants and not for personal gain or to exaggerate injury. The court declined to dismiss the claim under section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, finding that to do so would result in injustice given the egregious conduct of the defendants and the plaintiff's eventual candour.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Defendants held liable for plaintiff's injuries and loss arising from the accident.
  • Damages to be assessed, including special damages for prosthetic aids and related expenses.