Scanlan -v- Michael McDonnel ( t/a Trading as The Woodlands Caravan and Camping Park) (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, a married woman, sustained injuries from a fall on 14 July 2018 at the Defendant's caravan park in The City, County Kerry. The accident occurred when the Plaintiff tripped over an electricity power cable connected from a service post to her caravan, resulting in a fracture to the distal end of her left humerus and an injury to her left thumb.

The Plaintiff and her husband were familiar with the Defendant's caravan park, having visited approximately 20 times between 2011 and 2018. The park, constructed in 1998 and professionally designed, was well maintained and had won several awards. On 13 July 2018, the Plaintiff and her husband made a late booking and were allocated a standard pitch situated on a curve of the service road, causing the power and water supply post to be atypically located at a greater distance from their pitch than usual.

The Plaintiff's husband connected their caravan to the power supply using their own orange cable extended by a black cable borrowed from the Defendant. The Plaintiff was aware of the cable’s presence and location. On the day after arrival, the Plaintiff walked to the service post to fill a kettle with water, choosing a route that brought her into close proximity with the cable. She stepped over the cable to access the water tap but on returning, she tripped on the cable and fell, causing injury.

The Plaintiff brought a claim for damages alleging negligence by the Defendant in the placement of the service post and the resulting tripping hazard.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the presence of the Plaintiff's own cable hanging down or lying on the ground near the service post constituted a "usual" or "unusual danger" under the Occupier's Liability Act 1995.
2. If the danger was "usual," whether the Plaintiff took the reasonable care expected of a visitor to avoid the risk of injury.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff’s consulting engineer asserted that the Defendant owed a duty to minimise tripping risks by locating service outlets closer to pitches.
• The engineer argued that the atypical and excessive distance between the service post and the Plaintiff's pitch created an unacceptable tripping hazard despite the Plaintiff’s knowledge of the cable.
• He suggested that each pitch ideally should have its own upright located within 5 meters and preferably behind the caravan, and tentatively criticized the co-location of water and power on the same post as increasing foot traffic and risk.

Defendant's Arguments

• The Defendant’s position, supported by engineering evidence, was that the presence of cables and service posts is an inevitable and usual feature of caravan parks.
• It was accepted that cables running from the service post to caravans create a tripping hazard that cannot be eliminated.
• The Defendant’s expert opined that the mechanism of injury was more likely caused by the Plaintiff’s foot entangling in the hanging cable near the post rather than tripping over cable lying on the ground further away.
• The Defendant maintained that the Plaintiff knew the cable’s location and could have avoided it by taking a different route.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court acknowledged that cables laid on the ground present a tripping hazard, which cannot be entirely eliminated in caravan parks where service posts supply electricity and water to pitches. The Defendant’s caravan park was professionally designed, well maintained, and the Plaintiff was familiar with its layout and infrastructure.

The Court found that the Plaintiff knew the presence and location of the service post and cable, and that she could have avoided contact by choosing a different route. The accident occurred very close to the service post, not along the entire length of the cable as the Plaintiff’s engineer suggested.

The Court held that the presence of the Plaintiff’s own cable near the service post was a "usual danger" inherent in caravan parks. The risk was foreseeable and avoidable by the Plaintiff exercising reasonable care, specifically by stepping over the cable.

There was no evidence of any unusual defect or danger created by the Defendant, nor was there a breach of the common duty of care under s.3 of the Occupier’s Liability Act 1995. The Court emphasized that visitors must take reasonable care for their own safety when engaging with services provided at caravan parks.

Holding and Implications

The Court’s final decision was to DISMISS the Plaintiff’s claim.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Defendant is not liable for the Plaintiff’s injuries under the Occupier’s Liability Act 1995. The ruling clarifies that the risk posed by service posts and cables in caravan parks is a usual danger, and visitors are expected to take reasonable care to avoid injury. No new legal precedent was established beyond applying established principles to the facts of this case.