Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions

1. This is an appeal brought on behalf of Trevor McMahon from the judgment and order of the High Court (O’Donovan J.) of the 19th June, 1997, dismissing the claim for damages that had been brought on his behalf against Dublin Corporation.

2. The background facts are as follows. The plaintiff lives in the flat complex known as Fatima Mansions. In the courtyards there there are poles for clotheslines and as far as the pole with which we are concerned, there was not a clothesline attached to it. Seemingly, what happened was that the young children had ropes and a rope would be tied on to the pole. There was a form of noose at the end of it on which the child would sit and then be pushed by

3. November, 1993, young Trevor McMahon then aged 11 years, was playing with some other children of similar age and they were engaged in this activity. It was in the evening around 7.00 pm and it was dark. On being twirled around the pole, unfortunately, his hand got caught and he sustained a serious injury to one of his fingers.

4. The single question for resolution is: was there negligence on the part of Dublin Corporation? Mr. McGrath has conceded that Dublin Corporation owes all sorts of duties to people in a flat complex such as this. The way the case is put by Mr. Finnegan is to say that Dublin Corporation should have interested themselves to some degree in this activity and should have warned the children to stop it. While he agrees the warnings might not have been heeded, on the other hand they might. There was at least an obligation on the Corporation to try by issuing these warnings and see would that produce any result.

5. I am afraid that I view this submission as totally devoid of any reality. It seems to me that such duty as there is devolves on the parents to look after their children. I do not know how many poles there were in the complex but there were very many and there were about 800 children. To expect the Corporation to go around issuing warnings like this, and to think that they would be in the least effective, does not stand with any form of reality. To suggest that such a duty devolved on the Corporation and that they were in breach of that duty and

6. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.