BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

1. The Second named Defendants were, at all times material hereto, the lessees of premises known as the Adelaide Bar situated at Wine Street Car Park, Wine Street, Sligo. The First named Defendant was the bar manager of the said premises.

2. The Plaintiff's claim is for damages for negligence on the part of the Second named Defendants which arose in the following circumstances. According to her on the night of Friday, March 30th, 1990, at or about 10.00 p.m. or somewhat later, she was traversing the forecourt of the said premises when she tripped on a kerbing which was used to confine the paving of the said forecourt which, upon her case, was standing proud to the extend of three-eights to a half inch from the surrounding paving and the public footpath. She says that on the night in question she was on her way to work as a staff member of a night-club and had come into the said premises with a friend who was visiting her. She had consumed three glasses of lager and was leaving with the purpose of going to her employment. She had summoned a taxi and she was going out to meet that taxi. It was dark. She says that she tripped over the said kerbstone, falling to her right and twisting her leg which was subsequently found to be fractured at the ankle.

3. The taxi arrived more or less as she was falling and was in fact driven by her husband, a part-time taxi driver, who was wholly unaware of the name of the fare which he was about to collect. In his evidence he says that as he arrived, he saw the two women approaching, he did not recognise his wife and as he came to a halt he saw her on the ground after she had fallen. He said that both he and she thought she had simply sprained her ankle and she elected to go on to her place of work. On reaching there, she found the pain too great and went home. She was brought to hospital the next (Saturday) morning where she was treated with a plaster of Paris backslap and subsequently came back to have the fracture set on an open reduction with screws.

4. The Plaintiff's husband also said that within two or three days he had a conversation with Mr. George McGoldrick, a brother of the First named Plaintiff, in the Adelaide Bar and told him what had happened and was told by Mr. George McGoldrick "Everything will be looked after".

5. On the night of the accident, the Plaintiff alleges that on arrival at her place of employment, namely the night-club, she encountered a Mr. Gannon a head barman in the Defendants' premises and told him what had occurred. This man's name was communicated to the Defendants in a reply to a Notice of Particulars but he was not called by anyone as a witness.

6. The Plaintiff was trenchantly cross-examined as to why she was alleging in Court that the accident occurred on the 30th whilst in virtually every document it was stated that she was injured on the 28th. She said she could not explain this fact. She was further cross-examined that in one medical report from Surgeon Shannon, he described her as having "slipped and fell injuring her right ankle, a twist injury on a footpath" and in another of Dr. Westby, it is recorded as "slipped off a footpath on March 28th, 1990". It was further put to her that while she no doubt did sustain an injury, it was not on the Defendants' premises and not on the night in question. She refuted this suggestion.

7. Her husband was cross-examined on the basis that his conversation was not 2/3 days after the incident concerned but was in fact some three weeks or thereabouts after. This he denied and said that he spoke possibly on the telephone though his recollection was on a person to person basis with Mr. George McGoldrick.

8. The defence case (other than evidence in relation to the ownership of the premises) turned upon the evidence of Mr. George McGoldrick. He said that some time in mid to late April he received a telephone call from a very agitated Mr. Flynn complaining that Mr. McGoldrick's mother was spreading a rumour in Mr. Flynn's place of principal employment, namely Quinnsworth, that Mr. Flynn's wife was going around alleging she had fallen coming out of the Adelaide Bar. Mr. McGoldrick alleged that Mr. Flynn was very annoyed at this rumour and said that contrary to the rumour on the night she was alleged to have fallen, she was not in the premises but at work.

9. I am satisfied of the following facts:-

10. Finally, I am quite satisfied that the point where she fell was a danger to users of the said right-of-way and ought to have been, within the Defendants' knowledge.

11. I am satisfied that the Plaintiff is entitled to succeed on liability in this action, and that no claim for contributory negligence lies. I am further satisfied that no cause of action exists as against Michael McGoldrick.

12. Turning to the question of damages for the injuries sustained, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff had an extremely painful and disabling leg for well in excess of six to nine months. By virtue of the fact that she had a large family to cater for, she had to become mobile and get rid of her crutches which would appear to me to be somewhere around five months from the date of injury. I have no doubt whatever that she suffered a considerable degree of pain in the succeeding twelve months but by the end of eighteen months from date of injury, the quality of her disability had greatly diminished and the quantum of pain she was suffering had likewise diminished.

13. I am satisfied that she is exaggerating the degree of pain in her right leg shooting up to her knee as stated to Surgeon Morrison on the 10th October, 1996 and that his description of residual discomfort is probably a more accurate statement. She has no residual consequence of the fracture and as Surgeon Shannon says "Such symptoms as she has are unlikely to be a matter of major significance in the long term".

14. In the circumstances I propose to award the following damages:

15. Agreed Special Damages £ 830.00

16. General Damages to date £17,500.00

17. General Damages in the future £ 2,500.00