Sunway Travel ordered to pay €12,000 over injury from ceiling fan

24 February 2022

Sunway Travel has been ordered by the High Court to pay €12,000 to a man and his young son over an accident in which the boy was injured by an aparthotel room ceiling fan that was too low.

Mr Justice Cian Ferriter awarded €12,096 to Kevin Heeney and his eight-year-old son Mason over the accident in their Tenerife aparthotel room in August 2015. The award comprises €8,500 compensation for the injury to Mason who was left with a small lifelong scar behind his right ear and €3,596 for the cost of the two-week holiday itself.

Mr Heeney, Corofin House, Clare Village, Malahide Road, Dublin, last April lost an action over the accident in the Circuit Court against Sunway Travel Ltd, trading as Sunway Holidays. Mr Heeney claimed it disrupted the family’s entire package holiday.

The Circuit Court found it was an accident for which no one could be held responsible. Mr Heeney appealed to the High Court.

In the appeal, Mr Justice Ferriter was told the accident happened on the third day of the holiday when Mr Heeney picked up Mason, who was nearly three at the time, to comfort him because he was crying.

Mr Heeney, who is six feet three inches tall, didn’t realise he was under the fan and in the lifting movement, lifted the child up above his head and then heard a bang where one of the blades of the ceiling fan hit Mason on the back of the head. The fan was six feet 9.5 inches above the floor.

Mr Heeney said there was “blood everywhere” and Mason was distressed. He and his wife immediately rushed down to reception with Mason where aparthotel staff arranged for a taxi to take them to the local GP who bandaged Mason’s head and got an ambulance to bring them to hospital.

Mason required three stitches behind his ear and the family had to return to the hospital before the end of the holiday to have the stitches removed.

Mr Heeney told the court that on two occasions before the accident he informed aparthotel staff the fan was too low or dangerous. The first time was after he himself hit his fingers off the fan when he was putting on a T-shirt.

On each occasion, he was told there was no other accommodation but the family was moved to air-conditioned accommodation following the accident.

The Heeney side, and their expert, argued this was a foreseeable accident, particularly when the problem had twice been brought to the attention of staff.

Sunway argued there had been no improper performance of its obligations and Mr Heeney had not discharged the burden of demonstrating there had been a lack of reasonable skill and care in relation to the height of the ceiling fan. It was also argued it was entirely Mr Heeney’s fault.

Foreseeable

In Mr Justice Ferriter’s view, the accident was foreseeable as a matter of law as the very thing which had been communicated by Mr Heeney to the defendant as being a hazard – the low level of the fan – proved to be a hazard. It also proved to be so in respect of the perfectly normal act of a father instinctively lifting a child up, including, as often happens when lifting a child, lifting the child somewhat above his head.

“Clearly, Mr Heeney did not go looking to cause the accident to Mason,” said the judge.

“In so far as it was contended by the defendant that the ceiling fan could not represent a foreseeable hazard to a small child, given the height of the small child relative to the height of the fan, that to my mind ignores the reality of life which is that many parents will instinctively lift their two- or three-year-old children up to the head height of the parent and often beyond in order to soothe them,” he said.

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...