Woman suing over pub fall leg fracture loses her case

A woman who claimed she suffered a leg fracture as a result of falling on an allegedly wet pub floor has lost her High Court action for damages.

However, Samantha Griffin was awarded the legal costs of her four day action against the owners of The Laurels pub, Clondalkin, Dublin.

Mr Justice Bernard Barton made that costs order because of his "very dim view" of the fact it was not disclosed prior to the hearing that the floor examined by engineers on both sides was not the floor in place at the time of the incident in December 2013 but was a replacement floor installed after renovations in 2015.

Ms Griffin (47), Cherrywood Grove, Clondalkin had sued Bellway Ltd with offices at Lower Camden Street, Dublin trading as The Laurels, Main Street, Clondalkin as a result of the accident on December 7th 2013.

She alleged failure to properly or adequately maintain the floor and that patrons were allegedly allowed to dance in close proximity to tables containing drinks and to dance while holding or consuming drinks.

Bellway denied the claims, said the floor was dry and contended Ms Griffin pushed a fellow patron away from her whilst dancing and lost her balance. It also pleaded contributory negligence on the part of Ms Griffin and that she had consumed alcohol such as to impair her balance.

In his judgment dismissing her damages claim, Mr Justice Barton said Ms Griffin could be seen in CCTV footage with her hands out to a man who had approached her and who she said in evidence had said something offensive to her.

The judge said her backwards fall was a continuation of the “action reaction” sequence after she met the other patron.

Referring to her having said her clothing, when she was on the floor, was wet, the judge said that was probably from the drink in her own glass which had spilled as she tried to save herself.

He was also satisfied the alcohol Ms Griffin consumed that night “had a significant inebriating effect on her” as she fell when she stepped back from the encounter with the patron.

In making costs orders against the pub, he said the floor examined by the engineers was a replacement floor installed during a renovation in 2015 and that fact only emerged during cross examination of a pub witness.

No satisfactory explanation was given as to why the fact the floor had been replaced was not communicated to the court, lawyers on both sides and their engineers who had prepared reports for the case, he said.

If the matter had not come out during careful cross examination, the court would have been left “proceeding on an entirely false premise”, creating the “possibility of wholly unjust result”

This factor was enough reason to depart from the normal rule the losing side pays the legal costs.

Refused a stay on the costs order, he said what had happened in relation to the floor issue was “outrageous” and he had great sympathy for Ms Griffin.