€159,000 fall award to woman overturned on appeal

The Court of Appeal has overturned an award of €158,864 damages to a woman who tripped and fell while crossing a courtyard beside her workplace in Co Sligo. Giving the three-judge COA judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Brian McGovern said there was «no credible evidence» to support the liability finding of the trial judge.

Geraldine McHugh (66) — now retired from her job as a clerical officer with the Revenue — sued the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, the minister for social protection and the State over the accident at Cranmore, Co Sligo, on September 1, 2014.

She alleged concrete pavers in the courtyard were in a dangerous and defective condition and she was caused to trip and fall as a result of that. Log In

New to Independent.ie? Create an account

She alleged her left foot was caught on a raised tile, she fell forward and injured her wrist, thumb, back and hip.

The defendants denied liability, pleaded contributory negligence and appealed after the High Court’s Ms Justice Bronagh O’Hanlon awarded a total of €158,864 damages to Ms McHugh in late 2018. A stay was applied on the award pending appeal which was against both the finding of liability and the sum awarded.

In the COA judgment, Mr Justice McGovern said CCTV footage established Ms McHugh had incorrectly identified to her engineer the point at which she fell.

Having seen that footage, Ms McHugh accepted she had identified the wrong area and her engineer accepted his report was on the basis of his having examined an area where she did not trip and fall, «although close to it».

Her engineer also accepted under cross-examination there was no tripping hazard at the place where Ms McHugh actually fell and this evidence was corroborated by the engineer called on behalf of the appellants.

The High Court’s conclusions on liability were based on comments by Ms McHugh’s engineer and the snagging of her toe was consistent with the raised lip of a concrete paver, Mr Justice McGovern said. That conclusion was «against the weight of the evidence». Because of the rejection of the High Court findings on liability, there was no need to address the claim the award was excessive. The defendants are also entitled to their costs, the court directed.