Woman seeks damages over alleged injuries in fall from chair at Supermac’s

Supermac’s is being sued for damages by a woman over injuries allegedly suffered in a fall after a chair on which she was sitting in one of its outlets broke.

Pamela Dudgeon, a carer aged 55, has sued Supermacs Ireland Limited in the Circuit Court for personal injuries allegedly suffered on January 6th, 2017 at the defendant’s premises at Eyre Square, Galway. She claims that a chair on which she was sitting broke, causing her to fall to the ground.

In a pre-trial ruling at the High Court on Monday, Mr Justice Anthony Barr ruled she is not entitled to CCTV pictures of the incident in advance of the hearing of her claim.

She had sought the images as important to her claim and appealed to the High Court after the Circuit Court refused to require Supermac’s to provide them. Supermac’s claimed she wanted to use the footage in order to “mend her hand”, should it be the case the images do not support her version of events.

Ms Dudgeon, from Woodlands Grove, Coosan Road, Athlone, Co Westmeath, claims she fell in a twisting type mechanism and was extremely embarrassed by the incident.

She claims she suffered injuries to her buttocks and abdominal muscles and required pain killers. She claims, due to ongoing pain, she finds driving for any length of time difficult, has had difficulty sleeping and her ability to work and enjoy life have been adversely affected. She alleges negligence by the defendant resulted in her sustaining personal injuries.

In its defence, Supermac’s denies the claim or that it was negligent. While it accepts the chair broke and was defective, it denies she fell to the ground and suffered the injuries as alleged.

At the High Court on Monday, John Hogan BL for Ms Dudgeon argued the CCTV pictures were “absolutely essential” because, “without explanation”, the chair from which she fell was not preserved. His client, who had never made a claim before, was prejudiced as her experts could not examine the “defective” chair.

James O’Donnell BL, for Supermac’s, said his client accepted the chair broke but disputed she fell to the ground as alleged.

The unavailability of the broken chair was irrelevant to the claim and was a bit of “a red herring”, he said. Ms Dudgeon’s lawyers wanted the CCTV to “mend her hand” and potentially make a new claim against his client but she is not entitled to use the discovery process to do so, counsel said.

In his ruling, Mr Justice Barr said he was satisfied the defendant did not have to provide the CCTV images. He was satisfied Ms Dudegon did not require the images in order to progress her claim because Supermac’s had made a significant admission the chair broke and was defective. While the defendant had made this admission, the judge accepted the cause of the accident and quantum remain very much in dispute between the parties.