High Court: Salvation Army not liable for injuries arising from altercation between hostel residents

About this case:

• Judgment:
  External link

Ms Justice Bronagh O’Hanlon found that the Salvation Army had taken reasonable care for the safety of its residents at all times, and that the attack from the other resident was not foreseeable in the circumstances. The Salvation Army did not fail in its duty of care, and was therefore not liable.

Background

Mr Mark Inglis (47) was a resident in the Salvation Army’s hostel at York House, Dublin when another resident, JF, poured boiling water from a kettle over his face, chest, abdomen, perineum and legs.

In the High Court, Mr Inglis argued that the Salvation Army owed him a duty of care, that he had indicated his fear of JF, and complained of the threats received from him to the Salvation Army’s agents, and that the Salvation Army should have acted to remove JF and prevent the assault.

The Salvation Army accepted that Mr Inglis was assaulted in their premises and suffered significant injuries as a result – but did not accept that Mr Inglis informed them of any threat so that the actions of JF were not reasonably foreseeable.

The Salvation Army also argued that, while they have a duty of care to their residents, it could not be so high as to require them to exclude any person who has behaved badly.

The incident

One week prior to the incident, Mr Inglis complained to the staff at the hostel that JF was making excessive noise and banging doors on his floor. Mr Inglis asserted that JF became aware that he had complained about the noise, and that, as a result of this, JF threatened him.

Mr Inglis asserted that he made two members of the Salvation Army’s staff, Ms Alana McCormack and Ms Marjorie Parrott, aware of these threats and that they informed him that nothing could be done and that JF could not be moved.

On the night of the incident, Mr Inglis was in the television room by himself when JF came into the room and boiled the kettle repeatedly. Mr Inglis stated that JF then turned the lights off and he believed he had left the room until he felt the boiling water pouring over him.

Mr Inglis stated that he then ran to a nearby take away restaurant where he was given two bags of ice and the restaurant called the Gardaí and an ambulance. He was transferred to the Accident and Emergency Department of St. James’ Hospital, where he spent an extended period in the Burns Unit.

Ms Alana McCormack, Acting Assistant Centre Manager since 2003, stated that she first became aware of Mr Inglis’ complaint that she had failed to act earlier on the day of the trial. She confirmed that on 16th August 2010 she sent an email regarding the noise issue to Marjorie Parrott, but that the alleged conversation regarding threats never took place. She confirmed categorically that Mr Inglis never said to her that he was under threat from J.F. before or after the incident.

Ms Marjorie Parrott had worked in the Salvation Army for 30 years, including eight years in the hostel and was a programme coordinator. She denied that she was informed regarding the threats, and added that Mr Inglis did not say why he did not want JF to know that he had complained about the noise

Legal submissions

Both parties agreed that Mr Inglis was assaulted and suffered injuries within the Salvation Army’s premises – however the Salvation Army contested the issue of liability.

Mr Inglis’s position was that the Salvation Army failed in its duty of care to him and was therefore liable for the injuries.

Mr Inglis argued that the duty of care was established within the Salvation Army’s own “Resident’s Handbook”

Counsel for Mr Inglis submitted that the assault was foreseeable on two grounds:

It was the Salvation Army’s position that they were not warned about any threats, and accordingly the evidence of Ms McCormack and Ms Parrott was in complete contradiction to that given by Mr Inglis.

It was highlighted that the Salvation Army is not an insurer and there is no strict liability upon them.

It was submitted that Mr Inglis had to establish the relevant and appropriate duty of care, and foreseeability.

The Salvation Army’s position was that Mr Inglis failed to discharge the necessary burden of proof, and furthermore; that the duty of care proposed by Mr Inglis was too high.

Counsel for the Salvation Army cited the case of Martin v. Dunnes Stores IECA 85.

Conclusion

Ms Justice O’Hanlon was satisfied that the Salvation Army took reasonable care for the safety of Mr Inglis at all material times, and had a system in place in order to deal with any incidents as they occurred in relation to those using their facilities.

In all the circumstances, Justice O’Hanlon considered that the Salvation Army did not fail in its duty of care to Mr Inglis, and was therefore not liable for the injuries sustained by Mr Inglis – the assault was not foreseeable and the Court did not accept that Mr Inglis had made complaints of having been threatened by JF, prior to this incident.

As such, the Court dismissed Mr Inglis’s case, stating that there was no need to make an assessment as to the quantum of damages since the case failed at the liability stage.