A goalkeeper with a GAA football club, who alleges he lost an eye as a result of a clash with an opposing forward who made no attempt to play the ball, has brought a High Court action for damages.
Mr Noel Brady is suing the other player allegedly involved in the clash, that player's club, the match referee, the Monaghan County Board of the GAA and the GAA itself.
Yesterday, the Master of the High Court refused an application by lawyers acting for Mr Brady, of Drumass, Inniskeen, Co Monaghan, for documents in the possession of Sean McDermotts GAA club (the club of the opposing forward Michael McMahon jnr of Kilnaclay, Threemile House, Co Monaghan); the match report of the referee, Sean Kerley of Liscarnan, Carrickmacross; and the county board and GAA.
Mr Brady, who is in his late twenties, was a member of the Inniskeen GAA Club. He claims he has had to abandon a career as a butcher as a result of an incident on July 10th, 1999, when he clashed in a football game with Mr McMahon.
Master Edmund Honahan, in a reserved judgment, said that Mr Brady came out to collect a ball short of the 20 metre line. It was alleged Mr McMahon made no attempt to play the ball but instead raised his elbow and struck Mr Brady's face.
Mr McMahon went on to score a goal which was subsequently disallowed. Mr Brady left the pitch and the injury later resulted in the loss of his left eye.
Mr Brady is suing Mr McMahon; Mr Kerley, the referee; Mr Gerard Lynch of Cabra, Threemileshouse, as nominee of Sean McDermotts; and James Dunne of Croke Park, Dublin, as nominee of both the GAA and the Monaghan County Board.
He is claiming damages for alleged assault and battery by Mr McMahon.
Mr Brady claims Sean McDermotts, the referee and the GAA failed to provide policies on the control and management of violent incidents involving persons playing Gaelic football.
Master Honahan said that, in cases involving sporting injuries, the man in the street would judge that all players knew and accepted the risk of sporting injuries up to and including so-called professional fouls but that voluntary sporting associations, committees and officials had no duty of care in respect of the risk of such injury.
However, the same could not be said of "an on-pitch assault" where, of course, the Master said, the assailant was liable. Bearing in mind that "the duty of care was limited to taking reasonable steps to avoid only foreseeable accidents," if it could not be established that the assault was foreseeable, then the referee, the club and the GAA had no case to meet.
Mr Brady would have to satisfy the court that the assault on him by Mr McMahon was foreseeable, the Master said. Proof of a want of care would not prove that the assault was foreseeable, he added.