Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions

1. Since 1977 Marathon Petroleum Ireland Limited, the respondents, have produced gas at sea off Kinsale, County Cork. Mr. Timothy Boyle, the appellant, had worked with them from the beginning of their operations on their off-shore platforms.

2. He met with an accident while working on one of these platforms, Platform Alpha, on 24th January, 1990. He banged his head against a girder while finishing certain cleaning work that he was doing in very cramped conditions on the lower floor of the platform in question.

3. The consequences were serious for Mr. Boyle: he was not able to get back to work; he was 57 years of age at the time of the accident and he had worked all his life since leaving school at a young age.

4. To explain further how the accident occurred, I reproduce this account from the reserved judgment of the learned High Court judge (McCracken J.) of 1st November, 1995:-

5. “When the platform was originally constructed, it consisted of two floors with a space of 22 feet between them. The bottom floor was constructed as the base from which to service the machinery at the top of each well head. This machinery consisted of seven fairly large structures called target blocks and which were colloquially known as Christmas trees, which housed the valve system controlling the wells, and possibly other machinery. [More accurately, the cube-shaped target blocks were at the lower level and the “Christmas Trees”, an extension from the target blocks, were at the next, higher level.] Each block contained several valves which were hand operated and also dials showing the pressure, some of which could be read centrally from the control room, but some of which had to be read on the blocks. These had to be inspected several times each day.

6. Some of the valves were located about 5 feet above the bottom floor and others about 8 feet above it. When the platform first came into operation, it was necessary to use a ladder to reach the top valves, and the ladder had to be shifted for each block. The bottom floor was quite congested as it also contained piping in connection with fire fighting equipment and electrical wiring, and it was difficult to use the ladder. There was a further problem in that the top of each block, which was 12 or 13 feet from the bottom floor, had to be removed periodically for maintenance. This required scaffolding to be erected around the block, which

7. In 1978, shortly after the platform came into operation, the operatives complained to management that they considered this system to be dangerous. It was decided that the best solution was to build a mid-floor so that all the valves and gauges could be reached from a standing position, and ladders would not have to be used. This floor was put in in 1979. Because of the position of the lowest valves, the height of the area between the mid-floor and the bottom floor is only 4 feet 10 inches at the most. The middle floor is supported by girders or rolled steel joists every 2 feet, which protrude downwards so that the headroom under them is only 4 feet 3 inches.

8. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was tidying up after having done the cleaning of the bottom floor. He was wearing a helmet of standard design with a visor. Because of the’ height restriction, to walk in the area he had to stoop and he claimed that, because of the visor, it was very difficult to see where he was going. He struck his head on one of the girders and jerked his neck backwards, and also twisted his knee when he fell, although the knee cleared up quickly. He continued to suffer considerable pain in his neck, shoulder and arm for several years after the accident and was unfit for work on the platform.”

9. It is common ground that these off-shore platforms must of necessity involve that workmen have to engage in performing certain tasks in very cramped conditions from time to time.

10. It goes without saying that such work is hard, with harsh weather conditions often prevailing, but this case is concerned with the single point about the cramped nature of the actual place that Mr. Boyle had to do this particular work on the day in question.

11. The case at trial, as I understand the position, did not proceed on the basis that the employers were negligent. It was common case that the place was “unsafe” in the sense that it would not be permissible to have such hazards and cramped conditions as prevailed in the place in question in the case of a conventional factory floor, for example. There were many hazards aside from the cramped situation of the place that Mr. Boyle had to perform his duties. But, it is accepted, such platforms do require additional hardships for the workforce for which, no doubt, they are properly remunerated.

12. To give a flavour of what the prevailing situations were like, I quote the following extract from Mr. Boyle’s testimony:-

13. The engineer called to support the plaintiffs case, Mr. Joseph O’Sullivan, described the place as:-

14. He was asked which was the major factor in the lack of safety: the head room, accumulation of the pipes or various levels of the floor. He replied:-

15. The case advanced on Mr. Boyle’s behalf proceeded on the basis that there was a breach of statutory duty by the employers. The breach alleged was of s. 10(5) of The Safety, Health and Welfare (Offshore Installations) Act, 1987 which provides:-

16. No legal authorities were opened to the trial judge at the conclusion of the evidence in the case, and he was told that it was a matter for him how to decide the case. I take this to be a concession by the plaintiff’s advisors that he was to decide the question of whether the defendants had done everything “reasonably practicable” as regards the safety of the place in the way that a jury would have decided such a point in the days when personal injury claims such as this were decided by a judge sitting with a jury.

17. The judge dismissed the plaintiff’s case and, in particular, he rejected a suggestion that had been put forward by the plaintiff’s engineer that catwalks could have been constructed around the extension of the blocks to give access to them. He was of the view that such an accident as this might happen just as frequently if there were catwalks, because there still would be parts of the bottom floor which would be only four foot three inches high. In addition, on the evidence of the respondents’ engineer, a catwalk would probably have to be supported by a number of pillars from the bottom floor, thus creating more obstruction on that floor. So, he did not think the catwalks would have provided a solution. Two further points were submitted before him - and rejected - concerning the helmet that Mr. Boyle was required to wear and the fact that the girders had not been highlighted sufficiently, but they were not pursued before us.

18. Before us, however, rather elaborate submissions were addressed based on the single, extant, ground of appeal which was framed as follows:-

19. The learned trial judge reached the conclusion that what the defendants did was reasonably practicable: he had no doubt that working on the bottom floor was difficult, inconvenient and to some degree hazardous, and required the operative to exercise considerable care. However, he did point out that very little work was carried out on the bottom floor and that the plaintiff’s evidence was that he would work there about six times a year. Of course, other of the operatives would work for much the same stints but it was certainly not used as much as the middle floor that had been installed. This was used constantly. It does not appear that any other accident took place in the place in question in the eleven years since the middle floor was installed.

20. Mr. Paul Sreenan, S.C. has submitted that the respondents had not in evidence set forth the “thought processes” by which they reached the decision to install this middle floor. Mr. Rory Brady, S.C., has countered that submission and said that this is not the test. He submitted that the Court should not engage in a rather wide ranging commission of inquiry as to what the respondents might or might not have brought into the reckoning in deciding on the steps which they took. It is clear that the respondents heeded the requests of their workmen who did not like having to use step ladders to get at the so called “Christmas trees”. The test should be an objective one: one would have employers taking the most elaborate steps by way of inquiry and so forth and coming up with a solution that would not pass muster, or, perhaps, one could find something that originally appeared to be appropriate but would be found lacking in the course of time. Here, there was no doubt that the employers had to make a choice of the lesser of two evils. It is conceded that the lower floor was hazardous, but if the middle floor had not been put in, would matters not have been much more hazardous?

21. The Court was referred to the following authorities: White, Civil Liability for Industrial Accidents, Vol I, p. 642 et seq; Edwards .v. National Coal Board [1949] 1 All ER 743; Marshall v. Gotham [1954] 1 All ER 937 ; Jayne v. National Coal Board [1963] 2 All ER 220 ; Daly v. Avonmore

22. I conclude that the learned trial judge reached the correct decision. I have no doubt that the onus of proof does rest on the defendants to show that what they did what was reasonably practicable. I am also of the opinion that this duty is more extensive than the common law duty which devolves on employers to exercise reasonable care in various respects as regards their employees. It is an obligation to take all practicable steps. That seems to me to involve more than that they should respond that they, as employers, did all that was reasonably to be expected of them in a particular situation. An employer might sometimes be able to say that what he did by way of exercising reasonable care was done in the “agony of the moment”, for example, but that might not be enough to discharge his statutory duty under the section in question.

23. However as against the requirement of a higher duty, it must be noted that the statutory duty extends to “every workplace” on the installation; not just the particular place where the accident happened to occur. As far as the facts of this case were concerned, a balance had to be struck. If the middle floor had not been installed, then undoubtedly the low height hazard would have been removed. On the other hand, the men would have had to go to the lower level

24. That is why I conclude that the judge reached the correct conclusion in the circumstances of this case, though he has not vouchsafed the very careful submissions and citation of authority that we were privileged to hear.

25. I would dismiss the appeal.