UPC worker who injured elbow after slipping on ladder awarded almost €27k

Four Courts, Dublin

10 February 2017

A 37-year-old network technician, who injured his right elbow while installing UPC cables on a house, has been awarded damages in the Circuit Civil Court.

Circuit Court President Mr Justice Raymond Groarke reduced Jakub Plotka’s €40,000 damages award by a third for contributory negligence, to a total of €26,667.

Plotka, who sued employer Sierra Communications Ltd and UPC Communications Ireland Ltd, told the court that he was putting a cable on a house wall in May 27, 2014 when he slipped off his ladder. 

He said he had been with a colleague and had set his ladder against a wall with bushes. While descending the ladder, he had slipped on leaves which had gone through the steps. 

Plotka told his barrister, Lydia Bunny, that as he tried to hold on with one hand, he rotated to the side and struck his right elbow.  He had felt pain and discomfort in his upper arm but had continued to work that day.  

He had later attended his GP who referred him to the Kilkenny Hospital where X-rays did not reveal any fracture.  He had suffered soft-tissue injuries and his life had been discommoded since the incident. 

Plotka, of Sandhills, Hackestown Road, Carlow, told the court that he was now working at a different position within the company as he could not undertake heavy work anymore.   

He claimed he had not been trained for this type of slippery hazard and the company safety guides did not mention what to do when confronted with foliage.

Alan Conlan, a forensic engineer who gave evidence on behalf of Plotka, said he had to cable at least 18 houses per day and had been working under pressure.  He said bushes were a frequent hazard for this particular job and another person should have been assigned to work with Mr Plotka and his colleague. 

Barrister Shane English, counsel for both defendants, said his clients denied liability and claimed Mr Plotka was a highly trained and experienced employee. 

They alleged Plotka, having felt that the bushes were a hazard before starting the job, should have called his supervisor as per company procedure. 

Judge Groarke said he did not believe that foliage had been considered a hazard sufficient enough to call the supervisor each time.  He said Mr

Plotka had felt he had to get on with the job but should have been more careful when descending the ladder.

“Had this accident happened when Mr Plotka was ascending the ladder it would have been a different matter,” the judge said.

Follow us for the latest updates & news

Recent News

Autistic cinema manager wins €12k over discrimination in roster row

An autistic cinema manager who quit when his employer was unable to guarantee him two days off in a row following a months-long dispute over rostering arrangements has secured €12,000 in compensation for disability discrimination. The complainant's wife gave evidence...

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,...

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...