Shinkwin v. Quin-Con Ltd. [2000] IESC 27; [2001] 1 IR 514; [2001] 2 ILRM 155 (21st November, 2000)

The second defendant, by virtue of his intimate involvement, control, and supervision of the plaintiff in the factory, placed himself in a relationship of proximity and owed a personal duty of care. His failure to provide adequate training, warnings, and ensure safety constituted negligence, making him personally liable.

Citation: [2001] 2 ILRM 155
Parties: Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: First Defendant; Defendant: Second Defendant
Jurisdiction: Ireland
Procedural Posture: Personal Injury Negligence Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome: appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Personal Liability of Managers, Duty of Care, Negligence, Proximity, Control, Corporate Veil

Tort Law Employment Law Personal Liability of Managers Duty of Care Negligence Proximity Control Corporate Veil

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Plaintiff

First Defendant

Defendant

Second Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Negligence Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the second defendant, as factory manager and sole shareholder, owed a personal duty of care to the plaintiff for workplace injuries
2 Whether proximity and control establish personal liability for negligence

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

Second defendant held personally liable for negligence causing injury to plaintiff
No need to decide employment status with second defendant