Kelly v Transdev Dublin Light Rail Ltd. & anor

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, formerly a tool-maker and currently a tattoo artist, suffered a serious injury at Dundrum Luas Station operated by the Defendants, Company A and Company B. At the time of the incident, the Plaintiff was living in a hostel under a strict regime and was travelling to give a talk to fellow sufferers of alcoholism. The injury occurred when the Plaintiff attempted to access the eastern platform of the station via an unauthorized route by climbing over locked gates and fencing. This resulted in a severe de-gloving injury to his left ring finger, ultimately leading to amputation and permanent disability.

The Plaintiff admitted to knowing or at least ought to have known that this was not an authorized access point and that he was trespassing. The Defendants operate and occupy the station and the Luas system. The Plaintiff sought to establish liability against the Defendants for his injury.

The case proceeded to trial before Judge Hanna, who delivered judgment on 30 November 2018.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff was a trespasser or a visitor within the meaning of the Occupiers Liability Act, 1995.
2. Whether the Defendants owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff and if so, whether there was a breach of that duty.
3. Whether the Defendants acted with reckless disregard for the Plaintiff's safety under section 4 of the 1995 Act.
4. Whether the injury was reasonably foreseeable by the Defendants in the circumstances of the Plaintiff's unauthorized access.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff argued that although he was a trespasser, the Defendants owed him a duty under section 4 of the Occupiers Liability Act, 1995, not to injure him or act with reckless disregard for his safety.
• It was contended that it was reasonably foreseeable that a person attempting to surmount the gate might place their hand on the fence protrusions, which constituted a danger.
• The Plaintiff also suggested that the signage directing pedestrians to the station was obscured, contributing to his failure to use the authorized access points.
• It was acknowledged that the threshold of reckless disregard was high.

Defendants' Arguments

• The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff was manifestly a trespasser under the 1995 Act and that they did not owe him a duty beyond that owed to trespassers.
• Counsel emphasized the Plaintiff’s admitted reckless conduct in accessing the station via an unauthorized route.
• Reference was made to section 4(2) of the 1995 Act, highlighting factors such as the Plaintiff’s knowledge of the premises and his conduct, to argue no reckless disregard existed.
• It was argued that the fence and its protrusions were standard boundary and security fencing, compliant with relevant British Standards, and did not constitute a danger to lawful visitors or trespassers acting with reasonable care.
• The Defendants denied any defect or insufficiency in signage or lift functionality that could give rise to liability.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court found that the Plaintiff was a trespasser under the Occupiers Liability Act, 1995, as he knowingly accessed the station via an unauthorized route. The Court accepted evidence that the fencing and protrusions were standard boundary and security features, compliant with British Standards, and not inherently dangerous to those exercising reasonable care.

The Court considered the Plaintiff’s admitted reckless acts in climbing over locked gates and scaling fencing, concluding that these acts were a significant contributing factor to his injury.

The Court also found that the signage directing pedestrians to authorized access points was present and not defective, and that any obstruction to the Plaintiff’s view was temporary and did not absolve him of his duty to take reasonable care.

Applying section 4 of the 1995 Act, the Court held that the Defendants did not act with reckless disregard for the Plaintiff’s safety. The Plaintiff’s conduct was egregiously reckless, effectively negating any potential fault on the part of the Defendants.

The Court emphasized that sympathy for the Plaintiff’s personal circumstances and injury did not justify imposing liability where none existed in law.

Holding and Implications

The Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

The Court held that the Defendants did not breach their duty under the Occupiers Liability Act, 1995, and did not act with reckless disregard for the Plaintiff’s safety. The Plaintiff was a trespasser who engaged in a sequence of reckless acts leading to his injury. No liability in tort was established against the Defendants. This decision directly affects the parties by denying the Plaintiff’s claim but does not establish new legal precedent.