Dinnegan v Trustees and Board of Management of Loughegar National School (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, a child aged nine at the time, attended the Defendants' national school in The City. The claim arose from an incident on 12 May 2015 during a school break when the Plaintiff fell while running in the school yard, sustaining a fracture dislocation of her left elbow which required two surgeries and physiotherapy. The Plaintiff initially alleged she was tripped by another pupil, but later amended her claim to assert that a raised steel pedestrian grating on a concrete path caused her to trip and fall. The Defendants denied liability, disputing the location and cause of the fall, relying on witness testimony and CCTV footage. The Plaintiff’s claim evolved over time, with a significant change following an engineering inspection in July 2018 that identified a defect in the grating. The case proceeded to trial where the court assessed the credibility of the Plaintiff and other evidence, including eyewitness testimony and CCTV footage.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff proved on the balance of probabilities that her fall was caused by the defective steel grating identified in the school yard.
2. Whether the Defendants owed and breached a duty of care to the Plaintiff in relation to supervision and maintenance of the school premises.
3. The credibility and reliability of the Plaintiff’s shifting account of the cause of her fall.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The fall was caused by tripping on a raised steel pedestrian grating in the school yard, which constituted a tripping hazard.
• The Plaintiff initially gave a different account due to confusion and emotional distress but always believed the grating caused the injury.
• The Defendants failed to ensure the school yard was safe by permitting running and not addressing the hazard posed by the grating.

Defendants' Arguments

• The Plaintiff’s original claim was inconsistent, first alleging she was tripped by another pupil, undermining her credibility.
• Evidence from a Special Needs Assistant (SNA) and CCTV footage showed the fall occurred near the concrete steps, away from the defective grating.
• An accident investigator’s inspection six weeks after the incident found no defect in the grating, indicating the hazard was not present at the time of the fall.
• General supervision was in place during the break, negating claims of negligence in supervision.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the Plaintiff’s burden to prove that the defective grating caused her fall. The court discounted the accident investigator’s evidence as his inspection was general and did not focus on the precise location identified by the Plaintiff. The court found serious doubts about the Plaintiff’s credibility due to the unexplained and fundamental shift in her account from being tripped by another pupil to tripping on the grating, a change occurring only after the 2018 engineering inspection. The Plaintiff’s explanation for this change was unconvincing and not supported by her mother’s testimony. The court also noted peripheral inconsistencies, such as the Plaintiff’s denial of participating in boxing despite evidence to the contrary, further undermining her reliability.

Conversely, the court preferred the evidence of the SNA, who was present at the time and whose testimony was corroborated by CCTV footage showing the fall occurred near the concrete steps, far from the defective grating. The court accepted that the CCTV footage was reliable and dispositive of the location of the fall. The court concluded the fall occurred without any identifiable external cause during ordinary play, which did not impose liability on the school. The court also found that adequate supervision was provided at the time.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the Plaintiff's claim for damages for personal injury.

The decision directly affects the parties by rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim due to insufficient proof that the Defendants’ premises or supervision caused the injury. No new legal precedent was established as the ruling was based on factual findings concerning credibility and evidence evaluation.