Bowell -v- Dunnes Stores [2015] IEHC 613 (09 October 2015)

Bowell -v- Dunnes Stores [2015] IEHC 613 (09 October 2015)

A mistake as to the date of accident is not fatal to a personal injury claim in negligence or breach of statutory duty where no limitation or deceit issue arises. The defendant breached its statutory and common law duty by failing to provide a safe workplace, specifically by allowing obstruction in circulation areas contrary to its own safety statement. The plaintiff was contributorily negligent for failing to assess the environment and follow training, warranting a reduction in damages.

Citation
[2015] IEHC 613
Parties
Plaintiff: Peter Bowell; Defendant: Dunnes Stores
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff, with liability apportioned 70% to defendant and 30% to plaintiff for contributory negligence.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Contributory Negligence, Workplace Safety, Personal Injury, Pleading Requirements
Tort Law Employment Law Health and Safety Law Negligence Breach of Statutory Duty Contributory Negligence Workplace Safety Personal Injury +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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Bowell

Plaintiff

Dunnes Stores

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is a mistake as to the date of accident fatal to a cause of action in negligence or breach of statutory duty?
  2. 2 Did the defendant breach its duty of care under common law and statute?
  3. 3 Was the plaintiff contributorily negligent and to what extent?

Ratio Decidendi

A mistake as to the date of accident is not fatal to a personal injury claim in negligence or breach of statutory duty where no limitation or deceit issue arises. The defendant breached its statutory and common law duty by failing to provide a safe workplace, specifically by allowing obstruction in circulation areas contrary to its own safety statement. The plaintiff was contributorily negligent for failing to assess the environment and follow training, warranting a reduction in damages.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff, with liability apportioned 70% to defendant and 30% to plaintiff for contributory negligence.

Orders

  • Order amending the date of accident in the indorsement of claim to 26th February 2010.
  • Damages to be assessed subject to 30% reduction for contributory negligence.