Two recent High Court decisions reiterate the requirement on a plaintiff to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the accident alleged to have caused their injury occurred in the manner described or indeed at all.
Justice Egan delivered an ex tempore judgment in the claim of Michael O'Connell v Coast to Coast Insulation Limited. The plaintiff alleged that on the 3 March 2020, he along with three colleagues were carrying heavy sheets of steel reinforcing mesh when he was caused to walk backwards into an open manhole sustaining injury. It was alleged the manhole had been covered with a traffic cone as a warning but was moved by another colleague thus being left unguarded. The plaintiff also alleged that he was told not to report the accident.
Two of the co-workers who were lifting the steel sheets with the plaintiff gave evidence that the alleged accident did not happen at all. They stated that all four workmen lifting the sheets were walking forwards and there was no open manhole present. Evidence was presented that any manholes would be secured with a steel cover and bolted down before hard core is poured - thereafter a steel mesh is laid with concrete poured after. Engineering evidence showed that the diameter of a traffic cone would not be sufficient to cover an open manhole.
Following three days of evidence, Justice Egan stated that the plaintiff was not an untruthful witness however neither were his coworkers and yet an irreconcilable conflict exists. Taking into account further elements such as finding the plaintiff first reported the incident to his GP four months after the alleged accident and that there was no corroborating witness evidence for the plaintiff, the Court held that the plaintiff did not discharge the burden of proof and dismissed the case.
Risks abound and incidents can occur 'Whenever, Wherever' for a multitude of reasons. It is for the plaintiff to establish what is alleged has occurred. This was highlighted in the matter of Amanda Shakira Dinnegan v The Trustees and Board of Management of Loughegar National School [2025] IEHC 423.
Here, the plaintiff initially alleged in her pleadings that in 2015, when she was a nine year old pupil, she sustained injuries due to another named child tripping her in a schoolyard. However following an engineering inspection in 2018, a raised steel grating (accepted by both parties to be defective) was identified as the cause of the fall.
Evidence from a teacher present in the schoolyard disputed the location of the alleged accident. An insurance investigator gave evidence that an inspection six weeks after the alleged accident found no hazard present. Retained CCTV footage showed a child falling for no apparent cause at a location well away from the defective raised steel grate. The plaintiff submitted that this was a different child as the child in the footage was wearing tracksuit bottoms of a type the plaintiff would not wear.
The plaintiff stated in evidence that she had to give up a number of activities including boxing due to the alleged accident. In cross-examination the plaintiff was shown a newspaper article containing a photograph of her winning a Leinster boxing title in 2017 while representing a boxing club. The plaintiff accepted she competed in the event but had forgotten about it.
Taken cumulatively, Justice Coffey preferred the evidence of the teacher and its consistency with the CCTV over the plaintiff's inconsistencies and inaccuracies of both core and peripheral matters. Supervision was found not to be an issue and the Court noted normal childhood play carries inherent risks. The case was dismissed.
While evidential difficulties can be present if an alleged incident is not notified until many months later, as can be seen it is not impossible to successfully challenge the narrative in the right case. In most other cases it remains true that early and thorough investigations are key to a successful defence.
