A High Court judge described as "shabby" the manner in which Dunnes Stores treated a storeman who was struck in the face with a motorcycle chain when he bravely went to the assistance of a Dunnes' security man who was being threatened by a man wielding a bottle.
Mr Justice Peter Kelly yesterday awarded €81,201 damages to Brendan O'Neill, a storeman with Erin Foods, Clonmel, with an address at Cluain Airne, Monadreen, Thurles, Co Tipperary, arising from an incident on the evening of July 4th, 2002.
The court was told Mr O'Neill was assaulted by one of two men involved in a 20-minute incident at Dunnes' shopping centre in Thurles. A security man had seen two men taking bottles from the shelves and secreting them in their jackets.
One of the men attempted to strike the security man with a bottle and Mr O'Neill intervened in an attempt to restrain him. When a garda arrived, another man interfered and tried to pull the garda away.
The garda then directed the second man to leave which he did, but he later returned with a motorcycle chain and hit Mr O'Neill on the face with it.
The judge said he could not but comment on the shabby manner in which Mr O'Neill had been treated by Dunnes. Despite his bravery in going to the assistance of one of its security men, he had received not a word of thanks or acknowledgment from Dunnes Stores until his cross-examination in this case, four and a half years after the event.
No real effort was made to make any contact with Mr O'Neill to inquire as to his welfare or to thank him for what he had done, the judge added.
Mr Justice Kelly said Mr O'Neill was struck in the face with a heavy link chain with such force that he fell back. Mr O'Neill had had a horrible experience which gave rise to substantial injuries to his jaw, nose and neck. He had to have two jaw operations and was still having ongoing treatment for neck injuries. His ability to participate in sport, which he enjoyed greatly, had been much diminished.
Mr Justice Kelly said the security arrangements in place on the evening in question were substandard. To ask one person to be responsible for the security of the defendants' entire shop consisting of drapery, grocery and off-licence was not reasonable.