Aqua Dome not at fault over unisex showers

A JUDGE at the Circuit Court yesterday in Tralee said he had no doubt a mother of three had suffered psychological upset and …

A JUDGE at the Circuit Court yesterday in Tralee said he had no doubt a mother of three had suffered psychological upset and trauma after she saw the arms of a man underneath the cubicle where she was showering at a major leisure centre.

However, the Aqua Dome Tralee was not negligent in allowing unisex or communal shower units, with gaps of about five inches underneath the adjoining cubicle walls, the judge ruled.

Rosaleen Bowler (33) of Pope’s Cross, Laccamore, Abbeydorney, told how she had loved swimming and on February 25th, 2009, she had gone for a swim and afterwards into a shower cubicle.

She took off her swimsuit and as she was showering she looked down and saw someone’s hands. “A man was lying down, watching me,” she said. She put a towel around her and alerted management, and confronted the man.

READ MORE

After her experience she was prescribed medication for anxiety, had gone for counselling and had spent about €1,350 on medical and counselling bills. She now had given up swimming.

Engineer Gerard O’Keeffe, for the plaintiff, said the gap between floor and panel was too large. The panels in the Aqua Dome had been lowered and should be lowered again. There should also be segretated showering areas, he said.

The court heard how the National Aquatic Centre in Dublin had been designed by the same UK architects. Community changing layouts were standard practice at the time, and still were, Aqua Dome chief executive Kieran Ruttledge said.

However, barrister for Ms Bowler, Katie O’Connell, put it to Mr Ruttledge that difficulties should be foreseen “where you have a facility when men and women are naked alongside each other”.

Judge Tom O’Donnell said the claim for personal injuries suggested the defendants were negligent in allowing a male to be in the changing area. The evidence established “a different scenario. Unisex, communal shower areas do exist,” he said. He had “no doubt” the plaintiff had suffered upset but he could not see how the defendants were negligent in a member of the public going in and behaving inappropriately. He dismissed the claim but made no order as to costs.