Mulligan v. Laurence Mechanical Services Ltd. & Anor [2003] IEHC 97 (23 July 2003)

Mulligan v. Laurence Mechanical Services Ltd. & Anor [2003] IEHC 97 (23 July 2003)

Both defendants were blameworthy: the first defendant primarily for directing the plaintiff to operate the forklift without proper training or supervision, and the second defendant for failing in its statutory and common law duties to ensure proper training, supervision, and appointment of a project supervisor. Blame apportioned 70% to the first defendant and 30% to the second defendant.

Citation
[2003] IEHC 97
Parties
Plaintiff: Martin Mulligan; First Named Defendant: Laurence Mechanical Services Limited; Second Named Defendant: Lakeland Dairies Co-Operative Limited; Third Party: Amlac Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Settlement Between Plaintiff and Defendants; Apportionment of Liability Between Defendants
Outcome
Liability apportioned 70% to first defendant, 30% to second defendant; damages agreed between plaintiff and defendants; third party discharged by consent.
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Statutory Duty Under Health and Safety Regulations
Tort Law Employment Law Health and Safety Law Employer's Liability Negligence Apportionment of Liability Statutory Duty Under Health and Safety Regulations

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Mulligan

Plaintiff

Laurence Mechanical Services Limited

First Named Defendant

Lakeland Dairies Co-Operative Limited

Second Named Defendant

Amlac Limited

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Settlement Between Plaintiff and Defendants; Apportionment of Liability Between Defendants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defendant was negligent
  2. 2 Correct apportionment of blameworthiness between first and second defendants

Ratio Decidendi

Both defendants were blameworthy: the first defendant primarily for directing the plaintiff to operate the forklift without proper training or supervision, and the second defendant for failing in its statutory and common law duties to ensure proper training, supervision, and appointment of a project supervisor. Blame apportioned 70% to the first defendant and 30% to the second defendant.

Court Disposition

Liability apportioned 70% to first defendant, 30% to second defendant; damages agreed between plaintiff and defendants; third party discharged by consent.

Orders

  • First defendant liable for 70% of damages
  • Second defendant liable for 30% of damages