Court of Appeal dismisses appeal and upholds decision of the High Court to award the plaintiff/respondent the sum of €102,000 and costs in respect of injuries sustained in a fall on the appellant/defendant’s premises, on the grounds that: (a) the decision of the trial judge was one open to her on the evidence, and the inferences drawn should not be set aside; (b) the trial judge did not commit a material error or significant error in reaching her conclusions on the facts; and (c) while the trial judge’s analysis may not have been as detailed or forensically comprehensive as it could have been, the judgment contained a sufficient analysis of the evidence which led her to conclude as she did.
Faherty J (nem diss): Appeal of an ex tempore decision of the High Court to award the plaintiff/respondent the sum of €102,000 and costs in respect of injuries sustained in a fall on the appellant/defendant’s premises - the appellant appealed the finding of liability only - the respondent was an 83 year old woman who was shopping in the appellant's premises when she slipped and fell having stepped on a spillage on the floor of one of the aisles - the appellant accepted that the onus was on it to establish that it had an adequate system in place and that the system operated adequately on the day of the plaintiff’s accident - whether the trial judge erred in law or in fact or on a mixed question of law and fact in finding that the system of cleaning operated by the defendant was not reasonable in all of the circumstances - Hay v. O’Grady [1992] 1 I.R. 210 - whether the trial judge’s finding that the defendant had not discharged the onus on it to prove that the spillage occurred after 12:58 should be set aside - whether there was a credible evidential basis for the inferences drawn by the trial judge - appeal dismissed.