The High Court has dismissed a personal injury claim brought by a stable employee who alleged that he injured his back while emptying a wheelbarrow at his employer’s racehorse training premises.
The plaintiff claimed that he suffered a back spasm while emptying a wheelbarrow of soiled hay and horse dung onto a dung heap at the stables. His case was based on an alleged unsafe system of work, namely that he was required to empty the wheelbarrow on an upward incline of loose hay.
As part of his duties, the plaintiff was required to fill 10–15 wheelbarrows of soiled hay each day from the horseboxes and empty them onto the dung heap. He was also instructed to use a fork or shovel to throw loose hay onto higher mounds in order to keep the base of the heap clear, allowing wheelbarrows to be tipped on a flat surface.
The plaintiff’s claim was unsuccessful in the Circuit Court, and he appealed that decision to the High Court.
On appeal, Mr Justice Twomey considered established case law on workplace injuries, noting that courts must apply common sense and a degree of scepticism when assessing personal injury claims, particularly where the task involved is an ordinary, everyday activity. He observed that expert evidence is not required in such circumstances and that common sense should prevail when considering how a wheelbarrow is operated.
The judge referred to the Court of Appeal decision in Nemeth v Topaz Energy Group Limited [2021] IECA 252, where it was held that an employer is not an insurer against all injuries suffered by an employee while carrying out everyday tasks at work. In that case, the court stated:
“An unfortunate everyday mishap does not become someone’s fault because it happens on the premises of an employer… The test remains: has the employer failed to exercise reasonable care?”
Mr Justice Twomey also noted deficiencies in the plaintiff’s case, including that it had not been pleaded in the original proceedings that the injury arose from a wheelbarrow incident. The court further observed that, based on subsequent discussions between the plaintiff and his doctor, it was unclear whether the injury even occurred at the stables.
The court found that the plaintiff had ample experience using wheelbarrows and should have known how to operate one safely. It also concluded that the requirements of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 had not been met, as the employer had not been put on proper notice that the alleged unsafe system of work involved emptying a wheelbarrow in an unorthodox manner.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and indicated that the costs of both the High Court and Circuit Court proceedings should be awarded against the plaintiff.
This decision reinforces that employers are required to take reasonable care, but they are not automatically liable for injuries arising from routine tasks where no unsafe system of work is established.
Lawless v Keatley [2025] IEHC 364.
If you have any questions our specialized Personal Injury Claims team is here to help.
You can contact McCormack Solicitors on
Email: info@carolmccormacksolicitors.ie
Phone: 071 9621846
www.carolmccormacksolicitors.ie
Disclaimer:
The contents of these pages are provided as an information guide only. While every effort is made in preparing material for publication no responsibility is accepted by or on behalf of McCormack Solicitors for any errors, omissions or misleading statements on these pages or any site to which these pages connect.