High Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> McGarr -v- Dublin Bus/Bus Atha Cliath [2015] IEHC 277 (28 April 2015)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2015/H277.html
Cite as: [2015] IEHC 277
[New search] [Help]
Judgment
| ||||||||||||||||
Neutral Citation: [2015] IEHC 277 THE HIGH COURT [2010 No. 6007 P.] BETWEEN MARGARET MCGARR PLAINTIFF DUBLIN BUS/BUS ATHA CLIATH DEFENDANT JUDGMENT delivered by Mr. Justice Michael White on the 28th day of April 2015 1. This is an action for personal injuries taken by the Plaintiff alleging negligence on the part of the Defendant’s when she fell backwards climbing the stairs of a double decker bus on the 3rd October, 2008 at 8.46 p.m. It was the Number 19 route from Benevin into the City and the bus stop was in a residential area close to a t junction. The bus was a modern vehicle, whose condition is not subject to criticism. The Plaintiff suffered a nasty fall. 2. The Plaintiff stated she lost her balance due to a sudden jerk of the bus, which she described as an acute movement. Good quality CCTV was installed in the bus and the Court has been able to view footage from different cameras which has been helpful in determining liability. 3. When the Plaintiff got on the bus and bought a ticket, she kept hold of it in her left hand and also had a shoulder bag over her left shoulder. The Plaintiff appeared to be a fit lady who was walking normally. 4. On the way up she did not use her left hand to hold onto the rail on the left hand side of the stairs. When she reached the third step from the top, she removed her hand from the right rail, and attempted to put her hand on the cross rail at the top of the stairs. When she lost her balance she was not holding onto any rail. 5. There is a conflict of evidence about the movement of the bus. The Plaintiff fell when the bus started to move off. The Plaintiff and an independent witness on the bus Eamon McEntee gave evidence of a sudden jerked movement. Mr. McEntee stated the bus jerked violently. The Defendant relies on the CCTV evidence and the evidence of the bus driver Kenneth Martin. 6. The Plaintiff relies on the expert opinion evidence of Peter Johnson, engineer and the Defendant relies on the expertise of a forensic accident investigator David Land. 7. Peter Johnson gave evidence that because the bus stop was near a t junction the bus would have had to pull out to the right and then drive straight ahead giving an explanation for the sudden jerk. 8. Mr. Land stated that because of the engine configuration of the bus there was an interval of .16 to .3 of a second from the time the bus started to move to the passenger falling. He could determine this, from the design of the engine of the bus and from the CCTV footage from the start of the movement of the bus to the fall of the passenger. 9. The Court’s preferred evidence is the CCTV footage from the top of the double decker bus when the Plaintiff was emerging at the top of the stairs. At the exact time the Plaintiff was losing her balance a passenger at the front of the upper tier was drinking from a can and in the process of putting the can to his lips. If the movement of the bus was violent the Court would have expected the can to move or liquid to spill. This did not occur. The Court finds as a matter of fact while there was sudden movement when the bus moved off it was not violent movement. The Standard of Care Law - The Standard of Care
(a) the probability of an accident; (b) the gravity of the threatened injury; (c) the social utility of the defendant’s conduct; and (d) the cost of eliminating the risk. The relevant specific factors which the Court considers in this accident are: (a) the probability of an accident (b) the social utility of the defendant’s conduct.”
17. The Court finds that any sudden movement could have caused the Plaintiff to fall as she was not holding on. There were a number of ways she could have ensured her safety as the configurations of the rails on the stairs were very safe. 18. The Court does not find negligence against the Defendant and dismisses the Plaintiff’s action. |
