Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff was operating a stop/go sign at a busy set of roadworks managed and designed by his employer, Company A, when a bus driven by an employee of Company B ran over his right foot, causing significant crush injuries and multiple fractures. The incident occurred on 15 November 2015 at approximately 3:55 pm near a junction in The City. Both defendants deny liability and blame each other, with Company B also pleading contributory negligence against the Plaintiff. The court was tasked with determining liability and, if necessary, assessing damages.
The Plaintiff was employed as a traffic manager by Company A and was following a traffic management plan provided by his employer. The accident was captured on CCTV, showing the Plaintiff operating the stop/go sign near a concrete barrier on a narrowed roadway. The Plaintiff was visible to the bus driver and was wearing high visibility clothing. The bus collided with traffic cones holding the stop/go sign, causing the Plaintiff to fall and the bus's rear wheel to run over his foot.
Evidence was provided by the Plaintiff, two consulting forensic engineers, the bus driver, and reports from additional engineers, although Company A did not call any witnesses. The width of the roadway and the speed of the bus were disputed issues.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Company A and/or Company B were liable for the Plaintiff’s injuries arising from the roadworks accident.
- The extent to which the respective breaches of duty by Company A and Company B caused or contributed to the accident.
- Whether contributory negligence should be found against the Plaintiff.
- The appropriate apportionment of liability between the defendants under the Civil Liability Act 1961.
- The assessment of damages payable to the Plaintiff for his injuries and losses.
Arguments of the Parties
Company A's Arguments
- The accident was caused solely by the negligent driving of the bus by Company B’s employee.
- The Plaintiff’s position was obvious and visible to the bus driver, who failed to reduce speed and maintain a safe distance.
- The traffic management layout was safe and appropriate, having been in place for several weeks without incident.
- Company A denies any criticism of the Plaintiff’s conduct and does not accept that the traffic management plan was unsafe.
- Any negligence by Company A was overridden by the bus driver’s subsequent negligent conduct.
Company B's Arguments
- The width of the temporary traffic lane was less than the minimum required by Department of Transport Guidelines, effectively creating a trap for the bus driver.
- The bus driver’s ability to steer safely was restricted by the narrow lane and the presence of the Plaintiff and stop/go sign.
- The Plaintiff was contributorily negligent by positioning himself on the traffic side of the barrier in an unstable and dangerous position.
- The traffic management system designed by Company A was deficient, lacking a lateral safety zone and adequate safeguards for workers.
- The bus driver’s speed was too high given the road conditions, but the unsafe road layout was a substantial cause of the accident.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| O'Sullivan v. Dwyer [1971] 1 IR 275 |
Concurrent wrongdoers and causation; apportionment of fault requires both parties to have contributed causatively. |
The court held both defendants contributed causatively to the accident and are concurrent wrongdoers under s.11 of the Civil Liability Act 1961. |
| Jade Keane (A Minor) v. Health Service Executive & ors [2011] IEHC 213 |
Assessment of degrees of fault and contributory negligence based on moral blameworthiness. |
The court applied the principle of assessing relative blameworthiness of causative contributions when apportioning liability and considering contributory negligence. |
| Davey v. Sligo County Council & ors [2023] IECA 39 |
Foreseeability of third party negligence and whether negligence of a defendant was a subsisting legal cause of damage. |
The court distinguished this case from Davey, finding that the accident here was foreseeable and the defendant’s breaches were causative, unlike in Davey where third party negligence broke the chain of causation. |
| Zaganczyk v. John Pettit Wexford Unlimited Company and C. & M. Delaney Ltd [2023] IECA 223 |
Assessment of damages in multiple injury cases; holistic and proportionate approach with discounts for overlapping injuries. |
The court applied the approach to damages assessment, applying a substantial discount to additional injuries to avoid double counting. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court carefully examined the evidence, including CCTV footage, witness testimony, and expert reports. It found that the bus driver failed to slow down appropriately and misjudged the space available, driving too fast for the conditions, which was negligent and a substantial cause of the accident.
The court also found significant deficiencies in the design and layout of the traffic management plan by Company A. The roadway was narrower than the minimum standards set by the Department of Transport Guidelines, and no lateral safety zone was provided for the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was required to operate the stop/go sign from an unsafe position perched on a concrete barrier with feet unsupported and exposed to traffic. The court noted several alternative design measures that could have reduced the risk to the Plaintiff but were not taken.
On causation, the court applied the "material element and substantial factor" test, concluding that both defendants’ breaches were causative. It rejected the argument that the bus driver’s negligence overwhelmed Company A’s liability, distinguishing the facts from the precedent relied upon by Company A.
Regarding contributory negligence, the court found no fault on the part of the Plaintiff. He acted as a supervisor following instructions, was visible, and took reasonable steps to avoid the collision. The Plaintiff’s employer did not criticize his conduct, and the accident was primarily due to the defendants’ breaches.
In apportioning liability, the court considered the relative blameworthiness and found it just and equitable to allocate 80% liability to Company B (as employer of the bus driver) and 20% to Company A.
On damages, the court accepted the Plaintiff’s injuries as significant, including a complex crush injury with multiple fractures. Applying the Book of Quantum and relevant case law, the court assigned a total general damages figure of €81,000, reflecting the mid-range of a "moderate" injury bracket. Special damages were agreed at €22,968.51, resulting in a total award of €103,968.51.
Holding and Implications
The court’s final decision is that both Company A and Company B are liable as concurrent wrongdoers for the Plaintiff’s injuries, with liability apportioned 80% against Company B and 20% against Company A.
The Plaintiff was found not guilty of contributory negligence. The judgment results in an award of €103,968.51 in damages, including general and special damages.
This decision underscores the importance of adequate safety measures and compliance with traffic management guidelines, especially in high-risk work environments. It confirms that employers may be held liable for design and operational deficiencies that materially contribute to workplace accidents, even where third party negligence also plays a role. The ruling does not set new precedent but applies established principles of causation, contributory negligence, and apportionment under Irish law.