No absolute liability on local authority for accidents at flats complexes

Negligence - Personal injuries - Whether Dublin Corporation under a duty to warn children of danger of horse-play - Whether warnings would have been effective.

The Supreme Court (Mr Justice O'Flaherty, Mr Justice Barrington and Mr Justice Keane); judgment delivered 29 June 1998.

Our law does not impose absolute liability on Dublin Corporation for accidents which happen on flats complexes run by it and there is no duty on the corporation to warn every child in such a complex of the danger of certain activities such as hanging off clothes-line poles by a length of rope.

The Supreme Court so held in dismissing the appellant's appeal.

Joseph Finnegan SC and John Doherty BL for the plaintiff/ appellant; Murray McGrath SC and Charles Meenan BL for the defendant/ respondent.

Mr Justice O'Flaherty, delivering the unanimous judgment of the court, said that this was an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court, dismissing the appellant's claim for damages, made on 19 June 1997 by Mr Justice O'Donovan. The plaintiff resided in a flats complex known as Fatima Mansions where young children had a practice of playing with clothesline poles by hanging a rope from such a pole and being pushed by friends. In November 1993 the plaintiff then aged 11 was engaged in this activity at 7.00 pm and sustained a serious injury to one of his fingers. The net issue for resolution by the court was whether there was negligence on the part of Dublin Corporation.

Mr Justice O'Flaherty said that Dublin Corporation accepted that it owed many duties to people in a flats complex such as Fatima mansions. It was argued by the appellant that these duties extended to interesting themselves in the activity practised by the children and further they should have warned the children to stop it. Even if the warnings would have remained unheeded it was argued that there was still an obligation on the corporation to give the warnings to see if that would produce a positive result.

Mr Justice O'Flaherty said that there was no reality to the submission of the appellant and that such duty as does exist to warn children of the danger of horse-play devolves on the parents of the children. There were approximately 800 children in the complex and to expect the corporation to issue warnings of this kind was unreal. To accept that the corporation had such a duty and were in breach thereof would be to impose an extravagant duty on the local authority effectively amounting to a situation of absolute liability which is not provided for in our law.

Mr Justice O'Flaherty said that accordingly the appeal would be dismissed.

Solicitors: Burke & Ferry (Dublin) for the plaintiff/ appellant; Law Agent (Dublin) for the defendant/ respondent.