High Court: Woman who broke ankle at rugby club fundraiser has personal injury claim dismissed

About this case:

• Judgment:
  External link

Background

In this case Ms Amy Walsh (36) sought damages in respect of personal injuries suffered by her, when she tripped and fell to the ground while crossing the car park area at Wexford Wanderers Rugby Club in May 2012.

It was Ms Walsh’s case that her accident and the resulting injuries, were caused by the negligence and breach of duty of the Rugby Club, for failure on its part to maintain the area in a safe and proper condition.

In particular, Ms Walsh stated that there was a hole or depression in the car park and there was a large stone in the hole, into which her right foot came in contact and as a result she was caused to go over on her ankle, resulting in a fracture to the right ankle.

It was contended on behalf of the Rugby Club that, while Ms Walsh did fall to the ground while in the car park, it was at a totally different area to that alleged.

While not admitting that there was any defect in the car park in the area alleged by Ms Walsh, the rugby club denied that there was any defect in the surface of the car park in the area where they allege that Ms Walsh met with her accident.

There was also an allegation that Ms Walsh had consumed a considerable quantity of alcohol on the night in question, and that she fell due to her intoxicated condition. As such, it was alleged that she failed to take reasonable care for her safety while crossing the car park.

Conflicting evidence

Ms Walsh’s evidence was that she arrived at her friend’s house at around 20:30hrs and “was adamant that she had only one vodka and 7-Up in the house prior to going to the rugby club at 21:00hrs”.

Two of her friends who were with her on the night of the accident, Ms Farrell and Ms Casey, stated in evidence that Ms Walsh arrived at circa 18:00hrs. They stated that they consumed two bottles of vodka, almost two bottles of Peach Schnapps, almost a full bottle of Mickey Finns and a bottle of strawberry and cream shots, before leaving the house.

Furthermore, it was agreed that a third bottle of vodka was split into two smaller mineral bottles which were taken to the rugby club. Ms Farrell and Ms Casey gave evidence that this was consumed in the toilets of the rugby club, and this was supported by evidence given by the president of the rugby club, Ms Carty, who noted that she was annoyed upon witnessing this as the night in question was a major fundraiser for the club.

Justice Barr rejected the indication from Ms Walsh that all of these witnesses “conspired together to tell lies” about her or give perjured evidence, and therefore accepted that Ms Walsh “had consumed a considerable quantity of alcohol prior to arriving at the rugby club”.

Justice Barr noted that “these were merely peripheral matters, which did not touch upon the issue of liability”, but that they concerned the issue of Ms Walsh’s credibility.

Locus of the accident

The crux of the case concerned where in the car park Ms Walsh fell and what caused her to fall.

On the issue of the locus of the accident, there was a stark conflict between Ms Walsh’s evidence and that of her two former friends.

In considering this question, the court had to have regard to the demeanour of the witnesses.

The court also had regard to the fact that the case made by Ms Walsh at trial, was not the same account that she had given to her engineer. She told him that she slipped on loose stones, and did not mention any hole or depression.

In her evidence at trial, she stated that her foot had gone into a hole, with a large stone in it.

In photos shown to the Court – but notably not shown to her own engineer – there was no evidence of a hole, and in all the circumstances Justice Barr stated that it was difficult to construe Ms Walsh’s actions “in deliberately withholding vital photographs from her own engineer, as being consistent with anything other than a fraudulent motive”.

Conclusions

Having considered all of the evidence, Justice Barr stated that he preferred the evidence of Ms Farrell and Ms Casey, and found that Ms Walsh fell in a different area to which she had contended in Court, and that as she did “not make any complaint about the surface of the car park in that area”, that was the end of the case.

Dismissing Ms Walsh’s action, Justice Barr added that even if he was wrong in his finding as to the locus of the accident, from “a careful perusal of the photographs” he was not satisfied that the area of the car park was in an unsafe or dangerous condition at the time of the accident.