Month: October 2015

Electrician´s Claim for a Shoulder Injury against Iarnrod Éireann Settled during Court Hearing

An electrician´s claim for a shoulder injury against Iarnrod Éireann has been settled for an undisclosed amount during a hearing to establish liability.

Padraic Reddin (38) was employed as an electrician by Iarnrod Éireann at its depot in Fairview when, in February 2012, he was assigned the task of changing a front destination scroll on a Dart train. As Padraic lifted the replacement destination scroll up towards its mounting, he felt a sharp pain across his shoulders and upper body.

Although Padraic stopped what he was doing and rested for a while before completing the task, the pain continued and affected his everyday life. Padriac´s sleeping was disrupted and he also felt discomfort in his shoulder when performing relatively light tasks such as making a cup of tea. Padraic attended his GP, but the pain continued in his shoulder for several months.

Padraic also reported his shoulder injury to a superior, but the superior refused to complete an accident report form because of the passage of time there had been since Padraic had suffered his injury. Padraic sought legal advice and made a claim for a shoulder injury against Iarnrod Éireann.

Unfortunately, when Padraic sent an application for an assessment to the Injuries Board, Iarnrod Éireann refused to consent to the assessment of his claim. The Injuries Board subsequently issued Padraic with an authorisation to pursue his claim for a shoulder injury against Iarnrod Éireann through the courts.

The hearing to establish liability in Padraic´s claim for a shoulder injury against Iarnrod Éireann was scheduled to be heard last week by Mr Justice Raymond Groarke at the Circuit Civil Court. At the hearing, Judge Groarke was told that a value of €38,000 compensation had been put on Padraic’s claim if it was successful.

The judge also heard that the destination scroll Padraic had been assigned to change weighed 10kg and it was situated at a height of 2 metres. It was argued that, to avoid the risk of injury, the task should have been assigned to two employees rather than just one.

Legal representatives of Iarnrod Éireann then requested a brief adjournment. When the hearing was resumed, Judge Groarke was told that the claim for a shoulder injury against Iarnrod Éireann had been settled for an undisclosed amount and that the case could be struck out. Judge Groarke awarded Padraic his legal costs and closed the hearing.

Court Awards Compensation for a Slip and Fall Injury in a Bar

The Circuit Civil Court has awarded a painter and decorator €20,000 compensation for a slip and fall injury in a bar after a hearing to determine liability.

Thirty-one year old David O´Keeffe made his claim for compensation for a slip and fall injury in a bar after badly cutting his hand on a piece of glass at the Woolshed Baa & Grill on Parnell Street in Dublin on 18th September 2011. David had been in the bar to watch the All Ireland Football Final and, at the end of the game, he left his group of friends to visit the bathrooms.

As David manoeuvred his way through the packed bar, he slipped on the wet floor and fell – badly cutting his hand on broken glass that had been left on the floor. David was picked up by a member of the bar staff and given First Aid. He later attended the St James´ Hospital, where his cut hand was cleaned properly and the injury stitched.

David claimed compensation for a slip and fall injury in a bar, alleging that the Woolshed Baa & Grill had failed to follow proper cleaning procedures and that, because of this, the bar was liable for his injury. The bar denied its liability for David´s injury, and refused to consent to an Injuries Board assessment of the claim. Consequently David was issued with an authorisation to pursue his claim for compensation for a slip and fall injury in a bar through the court system.

The hearing to establish liability took place last week at the Circuit Civil Court, where Judge Jacqueline Linnane heard arguments that David´s injury was attributable to his friends trying to lift him up and dropping him while he had a glass in his hand. The bar owners testified that the venue had followed its cleaning procedures, and that an accident report had been filled out at the time, but that it could not be found.

At the end of the hearing, Judge Linnane found in David´s favour. She said that she accepted David´s version of events, as the bar had been packed “to the point that one would not have been able to see that the floor was wet”. The judge awarded David €20,000 compensation for a slip and fall injury in a bar.

Judge Approves Settlement of Compensation for Electrocution Injuries

A judge at the High Court has approved a €700,000 settlement of compensation for electrocution injuries in favour of a seventeen year-old-boy.

On July 3rd 2008, Kurt O´Callaghan was just ten years of age when he and his friends from Wexford City were playing in woodland near their homes. After helping make a camp, Kurt decided to put a “Keep Out” sign on a nearby electricity pole. Kurt climbed the wall of an adjacent housing estate to reach the pole, but as it started nailing his sign onto it, Kurt nailed into a high-voltage electric cable.

The force of the subsequent shock blew Kurt off of the wall, and he was fortunate inasmuch as a passing motorist saw the accident and was able to take him to hospital. Kurt was later transferred to the Children’s Hospital in Crumlin, where he spent the next three months receiving treatment for severe burns to his head, neck, shoulders, chest, and hands. Kurt may need further skin grafts in the future.

Through his mother – Denise – Kurt made a claim for compensation for electrocution injuries against the Electricity Service Board (ESB). In his legal action it was claimed that the ESB knew – or should have known – that a risk of injury existed, and that there had been a failure by the ESB to consider the wall Kurt had used to access the electricity pole as a risk due to its proximity to the electricity cables.

The claim for compensation for electrocution injuries was supported by a report compiled by an expert electrical engineer. The report was critical of the ESB for not identifying the risk of danger and, in addition to stating that the ESB had failed in its statutory requirement to ensure that electricity poles were inaccessible to a height of three metres, the electrical engineer found 52 other nails that had been used to hang posters.

The ESB denied liability for Kurt´s injuries, and the claim for compensation for electrocution injuries was scheduled for a full court hearing. However, prior to the hearing, a €700,000 settlement of the claim was agreed and a hearing was arranged for the settlement to be approved. At the approval hearing, Mr Justice Kevin Cross said that it was a good settlement in the circumstances as – if Kurt´s claim for compensation for electrocution injuries had gone to a full hearing – he may have been accused of contributory negligence.

Student Resolves Compensation Claim for Glass in a Dunnes Sauce

A twenty-two year old student, who suffered a cut mouth while eating a marinated pork chop, has resolved her compensation claim for glass in a Dunnes sauce.

Amy Holden from Ballybrack in Dublin made her compensation claim for glass in a Dunnes sauce after biting into a marinated pork chop that had been purchased from the Dunnes Stores in Cornelscourt and finding chards of glass in sauce the meat had been marinated in.

After removing the chards of glass from his daughter´s mouth, Amy´s father took her to the Accident & Emergency Department of St Colmcille´s Hospital in Loughlinstown. Amy was treated for her injuries, given a tetanus injection and X-rayed to see if she had digested any of the glass chards.

Although the X-ray revealed no internal injuries, Amy was advised to seek further medical attention if she started to feel sick or experienced any pain around her abdomen. Fortunately, the only ill-effect Amy subsequently suffered was a sore throat.

Amy made a compensation claim for glass in a Dunnes sauce and, as the claim involved Dunnes Stores´ public liability, Amy first approached the Injuries Board with an application for assessment. However, Dunnes Stores denied liability for Amy´s injuries, and she was issued with an Authorisation by the Injuries Board to pursue her case through the court system.

As the value of her claim had been estimated at €60,000, a hearing to resolve the compensation claim for glass in a Dunnes sauce was scheduled for the High Court. However, prior to the hearing getting underway, the court was told that the claim had been settled by negotiation and could be struck out.

The amount of the settlement or any terms attached to the settlement were not revealed. However, it is understood that Amy´s compensation claim for glass in a Dunnes sauce was resolved with an admission of liability from Dunnes Stores.