Ruling that Dublin Bus breached duty in injured driver case quashed

The Supreme Court has overturned a finding that Dublin Bus breached its statutory duty to provide safe equipment to a bus driver who was injured when the pneumatic suspension on his vehicle failed as it drove over a speed ramp.

The five-judge court quashed a High Court finding of 2010 that the 1993 Health and Safety at Work Regulations impose an absolute duty on employers in respect of the safety of equipment provided for the use of their employees.

That finding was made in proceedings by bus driver Vincent Thompson (54), Kylemore Grove, Tallaght, Dublin, against his employer Dublin Bus and South Dublin County Council over neck and lower back injuries suffered as a result of an incident on the Tallaght to Bohernabreena Road on September 27th, 2005.

Mr Thompson had driven the route 201 bus over three ramps on the road but, as he drove over a fourth ramp, the suspension malfunctioned and caused a loss of “cushion effect” to the bus.

In his High Court decision, Mr Justice Eamon deValera ruled Mr Thompson was entitled to succeed in his damages claim against Dublin Bus, but not against the council, which had, the judge said, built the ramps in accordance with best practice.

Equipment failure

Mr Justice deValera accepted Mr Thompson was not driving too fast at the time and that the suspension collapse was caused by a failure of equipment.

He found the company had a statutory duty to ensure necessary measures are taken so equipment used is suitable, or properly adapted, for its purpose and can be used by employees without risk to their safety and health.

In practical terms, Regulation 19 of the 1993 Health Safety at Work Regulations imposed an absolute duty on employers in respect of safety equipment provided for the use of their employees, he found.

While he was satisfied no blameworthiness attached to the company’s system of maintenance, its statutory duty had not been discharged and Mr Thompson was entitled to €75,911 damages, he ruled.

Dublin Bus appealed the High Court’s finding that there was a statutory duty on the part of the company in respect of the safety equipment provided for the use of its employees.

Unanimous judgment

Delivering the court's unanimous judgment granting the appeal, Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne found there was no breach by Dublin Bus of any statutory duty imposed by the 1993 Regulations.

Dublin Bus took the necessary measures to ensure the relevant equipment could be used without risk to the health and safety of its employees, she said. While in this case the work equipment had failed, it was clear Dublin Bus took the appropriate measures to minimise the risks involved, she said.

Unfortunately, Mr Thompson sustained injuries during the course of his employment, but it was “difficult to see”, on the facts of this case, what further steps were required to have been taken by Dublin Bus to comply with its obligations under the Regulations, she said.

The obligations under the 1993 Regulations did not impose absolute liability on the employer and in those circumstances, the court would allow the appeal, she ruled.

The Chief Justice, Ms Justice Susan Denham, Mr Justice John Murray, Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman and Mr Justice William McKechnie agreed. The matter has been adjourned to later this month when all issues arising from the judgment will be addressed.