A racehorse trainer cannot be found liable for a back injury allegedly suffered by a stable hand when using a wheelbarrow in a “most unorthodox” manner, a High Court judge ruled.
An employer is not liable for “everyday unfortunate mishaps” to employees that could as easily happen at home just because it occurred on the premises of someone with insurance or means to pay compensation, Mr Justice Michael Twomey said.
The courts, he said, should approach such claims with “common sense and a degree of scepticism”.
He made the comments on Thursday, dismissing a damages claim by Mark Lawless, of Carrickhill, Edenderry, Co Offaly, against racehorse trainer Adrian Keatley over an injury allegedly suffered on March 9th, 2016, at Rossmore Cottage Stables, The Curragh, Co Kildare.
An old flame has got back in touch – but we’re both married
Teacher and SNA resign from Dublin school over alleged ‘harassment’ by parents for wearing keffiyeh scarves
Legislation on housing for foreign nationals to be brought forward under plan
Terrorism inquiry into Kneecap’s alleged call to murder Tory MPs dropped, Met Police confirms
His preliminary view was to grant Mr Keatley his costs, but final orders will be made later if the parties cannot agree them.
Mr Lawless, who in March 2016 was working as a stable hand for Mr Keatley, claimed the injury occurred when he was emptying a heavy wheelbarrow of soiled hay into a dungstead, a three-sided structure with concrete walls and a concrete floor.
His job was to fill 10 to 15 full wheelbarrows daily with soiled hay from horse boxes and empty those into the dungstead. He had worked six to eight weeks for Mr Keatley, but is now working as an auctioneer.
Mr Lawless had called engineering evidence in support of his claim that his emptying of the wheelbarrow, which the judge described as “perfectly fit for use”, constituted an “unsafe system of work”.
His key claim at the hearing was that he decided to empty the wheelbarrow when it was on an upward incline of soiled hay, the judge said. It was claimed Mr Keatley was liable for the back spasm he suffered while doing this and the resulting injury.
Mr Lawless had said he was filling the dungstead on his own, the judge noted, but a machine operator attended the stables every four to six days to push soiled hay towards the back of the dungstead, intervals “well within” what Mr Lawless’s engineer considered appropriate.
A court does not require an engineer to tell it one should empty a wheelbarrow on the flat and not try to empty it on an upward incline, the judge said. That was “basic common sense”.
It was “curious, to say the least”, the claim of injury when emptying the wheelbarrow on an upward incline only surfaced six years after the claim issued in 2017 and only after an engineer took photos showing inclines of material in the dungstead operated by a different racehorse trainer.
On the balance of probabilities, the judge did not find it credible that Mr Lawless, who had “plenty of experience” using wheelbarrows and emptying out horseboxes in his own home, operated the wheelbarrow in the “unorthodox” manner suggested.
It seemed Mr Lawless’s recollection of the events was not accurate – that was human nature and not a reflection of the honesty of a witness, he said. Other inconsistencies in Mr Lawless’s recollection included a medical note in April 2016 which stated his problem arose from a fall “while looking after a horse”.
Mr Lawless did not damage his back while emptying the wheelbarrow on an upward incline, the judge said. It seemed his injury, if it happened as a result of emptying the wheelbarrow, was an unfortunate everyday mishap when doing the “everyday task of emptying a wheelbarrow in the usual manner, on a flat surface” and for which his employer “has absolutely no liability”.
Even if Mr Lawless did use the wheelbarrow as claimed, the employer had no liability for not providing a safe system of work because Mr Lawless’s task was to ensure the dungstead floor was clear so a flat surface was available from which to empty the wheelbarrow, the judge said.
Another ground for dismissing the claim was because the incline claim made at the hearing was not originally pleaded, he said.
