The HSE has been held liable for damages for the burning down of a Co Westmeath house next door to where it had “negligently” placed a vulnerable teenager known to them for her reckless behaviour.
In a reserved High Court judgment today, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan ruled that Teresa Ennis, whose home at 11 Percy Cottages, Magazine Road, Athlone, was gutted by fire, was entitled to recover damages against the HSE.
Judge Hogan said that in 2005 Jarleth Egan, a NUI Galway student had bought and spent his summer renovating 10 Percy Cottages as a rental investment. He had leased it to Ms A, who had previously been an in-care resident in the HSE's Shannumbern Retreat, which was at 6 Percy Cottages.
He had terminated the lease after number 10 had been damaged and it had become clear Ms A was unable or unwilling to look after the property.
The judge said a fire had started in number 10 and spread to number 11 after Ms A had vacated the house. She had unlawfully re-entered with a number of other girls and youths who had held a party in it, at which they had been drinking very heavily and had taken illegal substances.
They left the house after discovering a fire had started upstairs.
Judge Hogan said Ms A had been in care from the age of two and had just reached her 18th birthday. After having been put out of number 10, she had refused to return to the HSE’s Shannumbern retreat.
Judge Hogan said Ms A was an acutely vulnerable young woman who failed to co-operate with various therapies, and had engaged in substance misuse. She had a troubled history and started associating with a rough crowd.
She had continued drinking heavily and resorted to drug taking, becoming reckless and promiscuous with no sense of personal responsibility.She had wanted to go out with a particular man and, despite having been warned he was a convicted rapist, had considered it acceptable to do so.
The judge said the general principle was that one party was not liable for the actions of a third party save where a duty of care had been found to exist by reason of special circumstances.
There was a special relationship between the HSE and Ms A, such as had given rise to a duty of care. The HSE had considered Ms A suitable for independent living when she patently was not.
Despite evidence of the very best endeavours of social workers, he concluded there was negligence on the part of the HSE in having reached this conclusion and in failing to tell Mr Egan of her background and propensities.
“The State must act in a fair and even handed way towards all its citizens,” Judge Hogan said. “If number such duty of care were to be imposed it would expose innocent and absolutely blameless citizens such as Ms Ennis and Mr Egan to the risk of serious damage to their property in respect of which they had no right of recourse.”
Ms Ennis had lost her house and had been living in rented accommodation ever since. She could justly say that none of this would have come about but for the actions of the HSE in placing a vulnerable teenager with a propensity for reckless and damaging behaviour in the house next door.
“I would hold that the HSE do owe the plaintiff a duty of care by reason of its special relationship with Ms A,” Judge Hogan said. “Although individual social workers showed huge commitment and dedication to the welfare of Ms A it was negligent to conclude that she was suitable for independent living when she was blatantly unsuited to it.”
He said it was entirely foreseeable that the property would be damaged once Ms A had been left to her own devices unsupervised in number 10. Ms Ennis was entitled to damages in respect of the loss she had suffered as a result of the fire.