Court dismisses Ryanair’s appeal against €94,000 damages award to supervisor for slipping

The Court of Appeal has dismissed appeals brought against a €94,000 damages award made to a Ryanair cabin supervisor who slipped on greasy de-icing fluid on the cabin floor.

Ryanair DAC had claimed as part of its appeal against a High Court decision that it was prejudiced by what it said were constant interjections by the judge, Mr Justice Alexander Owens, during the hearing of the action.

Fiona Nangle (41), of Latt Hills, Cavan, successfully sued Ryanair over the incident in which she fell on the vinyl floor surface shortly after a Dublin-Warsaw flight took off on February 11th, 2018.

As a result of the fall, Ms Nangle claimed she suffered a spiral fracture to her right humerus, required surgery, was incapacitated for a number of months and needed assistance in daily tasks like looking after her children.

On Instagram I see the body of a Palestinian toddler, an ad for a wetsuit, Oprah talking

---

Here’s hoping household chores don’t include having to ask men to do them ‘properly’

---

Irish Olympian Jack Woolley: ‘We’ve sat in saunas and not drank water for two days’

---

Mark Moriarty: two 15-minute meals made easy, with a few simple tricks

---

Ryanair denied her claims and argued she did not slip on de-icing fluid but had tripped.

[ EU court backs Ryanair’s challenge against Lufthansa state bailout ]

[ Aer Lingus and Ryanair joined to High Court challenge to airport charge cap ]

In his judgment last year, Mr Justice Owens found against the airline and awarded Ms Nangle a total of €70,000 in general damages and €24,000 in special damages.

The airline appealed against that decision on liability, and the quantum of damages awarded to the court. Its appeal was brought on grounds including that during the hearing Mr Justice Owens interjected excessively to the prejudice of the airline.

It also submitted that the judge was wrong to rule out the evidence about the airport operator’s clean-up operations and the associated cross-examination or to accept the evidence of the plaintiff’s expert over that of the defendant.

In her cross-appeal, Ms Nangle argued the quantum of general damages was inadequate. She also claimed the defendant’s duty was incorrectly found by the High Court to be limited to issuing a warning to staff of the risks of de-icing fluid being tracked onto aircraft.

The plaintiff also argued that Mr Justice Owens had erred by failing to determine that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff to take appropriate steps to address the hazard.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal, comprising Mr Justice Seamus Noonan, Mr Justice Robert Haughton and Mr Justice Senan Allen, dismissed all grounds of both appeals and upheld the High Court’s findings. Giving the court’s decision, Mr Justice Noonan said the court of appeal could not see where the trial judge had erred.

[ High Court dismisses tenant’s appeal over landlord’s entitlement to terminate tenancy ]

The judge said Ryanair had claimed that it was prejudiced in its defence of the proceedings by virtue of an unreasonable and excessive number of interjections by the trial judge.

The authority relied upon related to a criminal case heard in the UK which suggests that a judge should refrain from excessive questioning which could give the impression to a jury that the judge does not believe what the particular witness is saying when that is solely and exclusively a matter for the jury.

Mr Justice Noonan said it was “difficult to see how that can have any relevance to a civil trial before a judge sitting alone”.

The judge said he had “difficulty in comprehending” this ground of Ryanair’s appeal.

“It is certainly true that the judge, in this case, was very proactive and asked a lot of questions of witnesses, all of which were clearly designed to enhance his own understanding of the evidence.”

However, at no stage was Ryanair’s counsel “precluded from asking any question he wished to ask” and, more tellingly, counsel was unable to point to any particular prejudice to the defendant said to have arisen from the interventions of the judge.

He added that no objection was taken during the trial to the judge’s interventions.

It was clear the judge reflected carefully on the transcript of the evidence after the hearing before giving his considered judgment.

After dismissing the appeals, Mr Justice Noonan said Ms Nangle was entitled to her legal costs of Ryanair’s appeal.

The Court of Appeal made no order as to costs in the cross-appeal.