Walsh v. Dublin Corporation [1998] IEHC 221 (23rd July, 1998)

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] High Court of Ireland Decisions You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> Walsh v. Dublin Corporation [1998] IEHC 221 (23rd July, 1998) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/1998/221.html Cite as: [1998] IEHC 221 [ New search ] [ Printable RTF version ] [ Help ] Walsh v. Dublin Corporation [1998] IEHC 221 (23rd July, 1998) High Court Walsh v The Right Honourable the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the City of Dublin 1994/4006 P July 1998 SMITH J: 1. The Plaintiff alleges in the Statement of Claim delivered herein that on or about the 4 April 1993 she was present in the premises of the Defendants known as Flat No 41, Basin Street Upper, Dublin 8, when, owing to the negligence and breach of duty and nuisance of the Defendants, their servants or agents, in and about, inter alia, the design and construction of the said premises and in particular the system of doors on the ground floor thereof, the Plaintiff suffered and sustained and continues to suffer and sustain severe personal injuries, loss, damage, inconvenience and expense, the door of the hallway leading back into the back room of the said premises, suddenly and without warning, closed forcefully onto the person of the Plaintiff by reason of the tunnel effect which was created due to the defective design of the said premises and in particular the doors on the ground floor thereof. The Defendants, in their Defence delivered herein, deny all the allegations made against them and plead contributory negligence on the part of the Plaintiff. The evidence in this case establishes that on the 4 March, 1993, the Plaintiff Miss Walsh, went with her boyfriend to her boyfriend's brother's apartment at No 41 Basin Street Upper, Dublin 8. She had been a visitor to these particular premises on approximately four to five occasions before the 4 April, 1993. This apartment, like the others in the complex, is a small compact apartment on the fourth floor of these premises, which were constructed approximately thirty years ago. On the bottom floor there is an open balcony at the front and the front door. As one enters the front door there is a small hallway, approximately eight feet long by seven feet wide, which contains a staircase to the upper floor. To the left of the hall there is a small kitchen, measuring approximately eight feet by five feet. At the end of the hallway there is a door, which enters into the living room, and the living room is approximately twelve feet by twelve feet. At the end of the living room, near the wall on the right-hand side, there is a back door going out to another balcony. If all the doors are open at the same time a draught is created, and the middle door, if open, is prone to bang and close without warning. This is a situation that arises in most homes throughout the country and one with which we are all familiar. On the occasion in question the Plaintiff was a guest in the Corporation apartment, the tenant of which was her boyfriend's brother. An unfortunate set of circumstances arose. The Plaintiff was standing close to the middle door, intending to go towards the front door. She had her right hand on the right frame of the door, with the open door to her left shoulder. At the very moment when she was about to go through the door, her boyfriend and her boyfriend's brother opened the front and back doors, respectively. According to the Plaintiff there was an unmerciful bang, and the door on her left shot past her face striking her on the face and then caught her right thumb as the door closed. As a result, the top of her right thumb was crushed and she has now lost the terminal 2 cm of her right thumb. The problem of the inner door slamming occurs whenever the front and back doors are open at the same time. A child belonging to a Mrs Anne Dunphy from Flat 38 Basin Street, injured her fingers in 1992 in a similar accident. She mentioned the matter to the caretaker, but she did not follow this up with a formal complaint to the Corporation. In the last two years or so, these middle doors have been removed and replaced with a fire proof door which has a controlling arm which ensures that the doors are closed at all times. The allegation made against the Corporation, as landlord of the apartment, is that the design or layout of the apartment was faulty in that it created a wind tunnel effect when all three doors were open at the same time and also that a restraining mechanism should have been attached to the door so that it would have closed gradually at all times. Mr David Semple, Consulting Engineer who gave evidence on behalf of the Plaintiff, stated that the problem of the banging door could have been obviated by:- 1. The insertion of a sliding door; 2. opening a door into the kitchen from the hallway, and; 3. fitting a closing device on the door. Mr Paul Romeril, Consulting Engineer, who gave evidence on behalf of the Corporation, rejected the suggestions of Mr Semple. He stated that a sliding door was unsatisfactory and would not comply with the fire regulations. He stated that the opening of a door from the hallway into the kitchen and then into the living room was unacceptable, and that the fitting of a closing device on the door was only ever done as a fire precaution and was never done to prevent a door closing because of a draught. The law is that the Corporation as landlord of the apartment must take all reasonable care for the safety of the tenant and all persons invited onto the premises. It must warrant that the premises are reasonably safe for users but it is certainly not an insurer of the premises. This case is not unlike the case of O'Gorman v Ritz (Clonmel) Limited [1947] Ir Jur Rep 35 where the Plaintiff, a cinemagoer, was injured when the patron immediately in front of her tipped up her seat and caught the Plaintiff's outstretched legs. In that case on Appeal to the High Court, the Plaintiff's claim failed. Geoghegan J, delivering judgement, stated that the Defendant warranted their premises to be reasonably safe for patrons. He stated that the Plaintiff sought a degree of diligence, foresight and precaution to which the ordinary theatregoer is not entitled. The Judge was satisfied that to guard against a remote contingency, such as that which led to the injuries there, would need precautions of a well-nigh fantastic nature which could not reasonably be expected in the construction or management of a theatre. I am satisfied on the evidence that the Plaintiff has not proved that the Corporation failed in its duty to her to take reasonable care for her safety. I am satisfied that the layout of the small apartment is satisfactory. It is a small and compact apartment and space is at a premium. I am also satisfied that the Corporation was not negligent in failing to have a restraining arm fitted to the middle door to prevent it from banging. The accident was unfortunate, and was one that could befall any of us at any time whether in our own homes or elsewhere. The Plaintiff's claim must in those circumstances be dismissed with costs. © 1998 Irish High Court BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/1998/221.html