The High Court decided to reject a Tralee resident’s claims for compensation concerning injuries which were solely a result of his self-imposed risk of scaling a 2-metre security barrier to get his children from school more promptly.
Emily Egan, serving as the justice during the proceeding, made it clear that Christopher O’Driscoll (42 years old) cannot blame the Irish Province of the Bon Secours Sisters for the major injury to his right calf. Although unfortunate, he had inflicted it on himself due to his decision.
Mr. O’Driscoll, a father of three who was pursuing damages of around €60,000, should have acknowledged the apparent danger of vaulting over the gate and turned back upon realising the route was undeniably blocked, opined Justice Egan. From CCTV footage, it was observed that despite Mr. O’Driscoll’s claim of falling from the barrier, he appeared to have jumped.
The justice stated that his action was considerably reckless, and any sensible person would have refrained from indulging in the risk that Mr O’Driscoll took on that day, September 21st, 2016. Further, she emphasised that individuals should be aware of the possible fallout of making such a decision.
O’Driscoll took an alternate route through the Bon Secours hospital’s premises near his abode while going to fetch his child from school. In his defence, he said that he used the shortcut frequently, but on the aforementioned date, he found the exit gate locked. Hearing the school bell strengthened his worry about being tardy for his child’s pick-up, and hence, he took the unfortunate decision.
Upon climbing and then jumping from the gate, he struck the ground with force leading to fractures in his lower leg. According to the judge, he is still in discomfort and has restricted movement in his ankle.
The magistrate, in her statement, acknowledged that Mr O’Driscoll conceded his significant part in the negligence leading to his climbing attempt. However, he insisted that his fall was a direct result of a faulty, unstable and damaged gate. He held the Bon Secours entity accountable under the Occupiers Liability Act of 1995, claiming the gate was hazardous.
However, Ms Justice Egan was not convinced enough to accept that the path was a frequently used alternative route. She agreed with the hospital’s claim that the gate was typically kept closed. She concluded that it was not foreseeable by the defendant that Mr O’Driscoll would choose to scale the gate.
The legal representation of the Bon Secours organisation – Murray Johnson SC, Sandra Barnwell, and RDJ solicitors – were justified in assuming that intruders would generally consider their own safety, that adults are usually capable of ensuring their own safety, and that an adult demonstrating caution would not have embarked on the course of action that Mr O’Driscoll did, according to the magistrate.
She declared that his injuries were solely a result of his choice to take an unwarranted risk and his neglect in considering his own well-being, she determined.