€16,500 for woman who walked into doors at workplace and smashed her front teeth

A woman who walked into doors and smashed her front teeth has been awarded more than €16,500 damages.

Information technology executive Roseanna McDonald received the award despite having been held partly responsible for an accident at her former workplace.

The case of Ms McDonald led Judge Dara Hayes in the Circuit Civil Court today issuing a warning to employers of the importance of indicating the presence of see-through plate glass doors with clear warnings.

Judge Hayes said Ms McDonald, of Merrion Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, had sustained significant dental injury when she walked into double plate glass doors at Brightwater Selection (Ireland) Ltd’s offices in Merrion Square, Dublin, where she worked in January 2017.

“In the immediate aftermath she was bleeding from her mouth and broke two teeth and fragments of each of them were found on the floor,” Judge Hayes said.

“She experienced significant shock and distress.”

He said she had sustained fractures to her four upper front teeth and nerve damage to two of them leading to them having turned black.

She had to have the four teeth crowned.

Barrister Sharbee Morrin, counsel for Ms McDonald, said she had been loading computer items into her car outside the Brightwater’s offices and had been walking in and out through one of the double glass doors which she had left open.

On her final journey the door had been somehow closed and she had walked into it.

Mr Morrin, who appeared with O’Hanrahan Solicitors, said the doors had previously contained plain frosted strips that had been removed prior to the accident in preparation for the installation of new frosted strips bearing the company’s logo.

Judge Hayes said there had been significant discussion as to whether two metre-long perpendicular door handles constituted sufficient warning that the doors were closed.

He said forensic engineer Donal Terry had stated that the only reasonable explanation for the accident was that Ms McDonald had not seen the closed door likely due to a moment of inattention.

Ms McDonald had told the court there may have been an interaction with one of her superiors just before she had walked into the doors.

“Clear plate glass doors create an obvious risk of people walking into them and I am satisfied in this case the handles that were present did not provide adequate warning,” Judge Hayes said.

“It is often not possible to eliminate risk but it is always possible to mitigate and guard against it,” he said.

“It is important for occupiers and employers to take steps to minimise risk not just for the novice or those unfamiliar with the premises or workplace but to guard and protect against familiarity breeding complacency.”

Judge Hayes said the risk could and should have been mitigated by better and more prominent markings on the doors but Ms McDonald had to bear some responsibility for the accident and he assessed her liability at 35pc.

The judge said she had undergone significant dental treatment, requiring four crowns and replacement of them after about 15 years hence.

He assessed general damages at €17,500 together with €4,220 for dental work to date and €3,960 for future dental treatment.

Taking Ms McDonald’s contributory negligence into account he awarded her a decree for €16,692 and legal costs.

Follow us for the latest updates & news

Recent News

Northern Ireland exam board boss wins £100,000 settlement

Northern Ireland’s Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) has paid a substantial settlement to its former interim chief executive who complained of sex, race and age discrimination and constructive dismissal. The sum paid to Margaret Farragher,...

Catriona Crumlish v Health Service Executive – Court of Appeal

On Oct. 15th, The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision against Caitriona Crumlish in her claim against Letterkenny University hospital. The plaintiff alleged that there was a failure to detect and diagnose breast cancer in May 2017 resulting in an alleged...

Recent Articles

Psychological Injury

Nervous Shock I The law allows recovery of damages for so called nervous shock, within certain parameters and subject to limitations.  Nervous shock is the most commonly used legal label for psychiatric or psychological injury. Psychiatric injuries include...

Public Authorities and Negligence

Powers and Duties In broad terms, public authorities are subject to civil liability for negligence and other civil wrongs, in the same way as private individuals and companies.  The State and other public bodies are responsible for the actions and omissions of...

Duty of Care (Part 2)

Limits to Neighbour Principle The famous neighbour principle re-stated the general basis of liability in negligence. It stated, that “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your...

Duty of Care (Part 1)

Meaning of Negligence I Negligence is used in a number of senses.  In one sense, it refers to a person’s state of mind.  An act is negligent, where it is done without giving due weight to the risks involved.  A person  (and his state of mind) may...

Join our Panel

You May Also Like...