Govers v Canurie Ltd trading as McGeoughs Bar and Restaurant (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff was employed by Company A as a commis chef from about 20 August 2019 following a period of casual employment. The Plaintiff alleges that on 7 November 2019, while operating a 5kg commercial hand-held blender with a kitchen porter in an alcove off the corridor adjacent to the kitchen at Company A's premises, he suffered an injury to his back. A personal injuries summons issued on 2 December 2020. Company A entered an appearance in 2021 and pleaded a full denial and contributory negligence. Discovery motions were exchanged and, by consent order dated 10 October 2022, Company A was ordered to produce accident reports, training records (including manual handling), and risk assessment/safety statements relevant to operation of the blender as at 7 November 2019. The matter proceeded to a contested hearing before Judge Bradley in May 2026.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Company A breached its duties under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 and related regulations by failing to provide training (including manual handling training) and by failing to carry out a risk assessment relating to the blending task.
2. Whether the Plaintiff's alleged mechanism of injury and resulting clinical condition were caused by the incident on 7 November 2019.
3. Whether the Plaintiff was contributorily negligent and, if so, the appropriate percentage reduction to damages.
4. The appropriate quantum of general and special damages, including past loss of earnings for the relevant period.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff contended he and a kitchen porter carried out a continuous 15–20 minute blending process in a confined, congested alcove and that he had to hold the blender suspended in the sieve while squatting, causing the injury.
• The Plaintiff asserted Company A provided no manual handling training and performed no risk assessment for the task.
• The Plaintiff relied on engineering evidence that the blender was heavy for the posture used, that pan supports and appropriate pots or supports were not provided or used, and on medical evidence of a persisting back condition attributable to the incident.

Defendant's Arguments

• Company A denied liability and asserted the blending process as shown in contemporaneous demonstration videos was a two-stage process routinely used for years without incident, involving brief periods of hand-held use and use of a jug, sieve and support; the method used by the Plaintiff on the day differed from that routine method.
• Company A accepted there was no formal manual handling training but contended the blender's weight and forces were within Health and Safety Authority guidance and a reasonable person could safely perform the task standing or seated; it relied on its engineer's evidence to that effect.
• Company A pleaded contributory negligence on the basis that the Plaintiff had previously told a senior employee he had hurt his back at the gym the day before and had been shown the routine blending method by a colleague; Company A asserted the Plaintiff failed to follow instructions and failed to take proper care for his own safety.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court made detailed findings of fact based on witness evidence, engineering reports and medical evidence.

Findings of fact and factual analysis:

• The court accepted that on 7 November 2019 the Plaintiff and a kitchen porter carried out a single continuous blending process in an alcove adjacent to the kitchen in Company A's premises, during which the Plaintiff held a 5.15kg, 830mm long hand-held commercial blender with its mixing head in the sieve placed in the second pot; the process took about 15 minutes.
• The court found the work area was constrained (corridor and alcove dimensions were measured by the Plaintiff's engineer) and that the Plaintiff adopted a squatting/half-squat posture during the task to stabilise the blender, as he described in evidence.
• It was common case and found as fact that Company A did not provide formal manual handling training to the Plaintiff and that no risk assessment was carried out for the blending task.
• The court accepted aspects of the Plaintiff's account (including that he suffered an immediate back event on straightening) while noting some inconsistencies in evidence (e.g. about sitting on a stool and whether a third person was present throughout).

On expert engineering evidence:

• Engineer Walsh (for the Plaintiff) opined the blender was inappropriate for the pots used, pan supports were available but not provided/used, the configuration created ergonomic risk and a risk assessment should have been carried out.
• Engineer Burke (for Company A) produced demonstration videos of the routine two-stage process used at the premises, concluded periods of full weight lifting were short, considered loads within HSA guidance when held at knuckle/elbow height, and did not see significant congestion or unstable forces in the demonstrated process; he accepted the employer's obligations to provide training.
• The court accepted that the process actually performed by the Plaintiff on the day differed from the routine method shown in the videos.

On medical evidence:

• Doctors for the Plaintiff described imaging findings (disc protrusion at L4/5 and annular tear, lateral recess narrowing impinging the right L5 root) and ongoing pain with functional limitation; pain specialists recommended conservative measures and possible injections though benefit diminished with chronicity.
• Doctor O'Brien (for Company A) concluded the Plaintiff sustained a once-off soft tissue injury that should have resolved within weeks (3–6 weeks), found no objective radiological basis for ongoing serious neurological injury and considered the chronicity and persistence of complaints medically unexplained, suggesting biopsychosocial factors might be relevant.
• The court evaluated inconsistencies in medical engagement (limited attendance at specialists, missed private injection appointment noted) and accepted that the initial period (approximately 18 months–2 years) post-accident involved substantial disability as described by the Plaintiff, while noting medical disagreement about longer-term causation and persistence.

Legal analysis and liability:

• The court found Company A had breached statutory duties under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 and applicable regulations by failing to provide training (including manual handling instruction) and by failing to carry out a risk assessment for the blending operation.
• Applying authorities on contributory negligence, the court found Company A established that the Plaintiff had been contributorily negligent: the Plaintiff had informed a senior colleague that he had hurt his back at the gym the previous day and affirmed he was fit to work; the Plaintiff had not followed prior instruction as to the routine blending method; these failures amounted to negligence reducing his recovery.
• The court quantified contributory negligence at 35%.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court held Company A liable for breach of statutory and regulatory duties in failing to provide manual handling training and in failing to carry out a risk assessment for the blending task; the Plaintiff's damages were reduced for 35% contributory negligence.

Direct consequences and awards:

• General damages awarded: €45,000, reduced by 35% (contributory negligence) to €29,250.
• Provisional special damages (excluding loss of earnings): indicated at €2,987.66 subject to vouching and agreement.
• Loss of earnings awarded (provisional for approximately 2 years post-accident): €41,815.20 subject to adjustments for recoverable benefits and final reconciliation.
• The court directed the parties to agree an updated schedule of special damages and to attend further mention to finalise outstanding adjustments, costs and ancillary matters.

Broader implications: The decision reiterates employers' statutory obligations to assess risks and provide training for specific tasks and confirms that contributory negligence requires clear evidence of the employee's failure to take reasonable care, with a significant discount applied where established; no new legal precedent beyond application of existing authorities was created.