Personal Injury - Negligence - Whether the defendant as landlord was negligent in the design and layout of the apartment - Whether the defendant should have had a restraining arm fitted to a door in the apartment to prevent it from banging.
The High Court (Mr Justice Smith); judgment delivered 23 July 1998.
A landlord is not an insurer of a premises but all reasonable care for the safety of the tenants and all persons invited onto the premises must be taken. A landlord must warrant that the premises are reasonably safe for its users. The High Court so held in dismissing the plaintiff's claim, saying that the plaintiff had not proved that the corporation failed in its duty to take reasonable care for her safety.
Bruce Antoniotti SC, Richard M. Keane SC and Breffni Gordon BL for the plaintiff; Sean Ryan SC and John Doherty BL for the defendant.
Mr Justice Smith in outlining the facts said that on 4 March 1993 the plaintiff was present in her boyfriend's brother's apartment at No 41 Basin Street Upper, Dublin 8. The plaintiff had been a visitor to these premises on approximately four to five occasions before the date in question. The apartment which was on the fourth floor, was small and compact.
On the bottom floor there is an open balcony at the front and the front door. As one enters the front door there is a small hallway, which contains a staircase to the upper floor. To the left of the hall there is a small kitchen and at the end of the hall there is a door which enters into the living room. At the end of the living room there is a back door going out to another balcony. If all doors are open at the same time a draught is created, and the middle door, if open is prone to bang and close without warning. Mr Justice Smith said that this situation arose in most homes throughout the country and it is one with which we are all familiar.
On the occasion in question the plaintiff was a guest in the corporation apartment, the tenant of which was her boyfriend's brother. The plaintiff was standing close to the middle door, intending to go towards the front door. She had her right hand on the right frame of the door, with the open door to her left shoulder. At the moment when she was about to go through the door, her boyfriend and her boyfriend's brother opened the front and back doors, respectively. Mr Justice Smith said that according to the plaintiff there was a bang, and the door on her left shot past her face striking her on the face and then caught her right thumb as the door closed. The top of the plaintiff's right thumb was crushed and she lost the terminal 2 cm of the thumb.
Mr Justice Smith said the problem of the inner door slamming occurs whenever the front and back doors are opened at the same time. A child belonging to a Mrs Anne Dunphy from Flat 38 Basin Street had injured her fingers in a similar accident in 1992. The matter had been mentioned to the caretaker, but no formal complaint had been made to the corporation. In the last two years, these middle doors have been removed and replaced with a fire proof door which has a controlling arm which ensures that the doors are closed at all times. The allegation made against the corporation, as landlord of the apartment, was that the design or layout of the apartment was faulty in that it created a wind tunnel effect when all three doors were open at the same time and that a restraining mechanism should have been attached to the door so that it would have closed gradually at all times. Mr David Semple, consulting engineer, who gave evidence in behalf of the plaintiff suggested the problem with the door could have been obviated by the insertion of a sliding door or opening a door into the kitchen from the hallway and fitting a closing device on the door.
Mr Paul Romeril, consulting engineer, who gave evidence on behalf of the corporation, rejected the suggestions of Mr Semple. He stated that the opening of a door from the hallway into the kitchen and then into the living room was unacceptable, and that fitting a closing device in the door was only done as a fire precaution and was never done to prevent a door from closing because of a draught.
Mr Justice Smith said that the law is that the corporation as landlord of the apartment must take all reasonable care for the safety of the tenant and all persons invited onto the premises. The corporation must warrant that the premises are reasonably safe for the users but it is certainly not an insurer of the premises. Mr Justice Smith said that this case was similar to the case of O'Gorman v Ritz (Clonmel) Limited [1974] Ir. Jur. Rep 35 where the plaintiff, a cinemagoer, was injured when the patron in front of her tipped up her seat and caught the plaintiff's outstretched legs. On appeal to the High Court the plaintiff's claim failed. Mr Justice Geoghegan, delivering judgment, stated that the defendant warranted their premises to be reasonably fit for patrons. The plaintiff sought a degree of diligence, foresight and precaution to which the ordinary theatregoer is not entitled. Mr Justice Geoghegan was satisfied that to guard against a remote contingency, such as that which led to the plaintiff's injuries, would need precautions of a well-nigh fantastic nature which could not reasonably be expected in the construction of management of a theatre.
Mr Justice Smith said that he was satisfied on the evidence that the plaintiff had not proved that the corporation failed in its duty to her to take all reasonable care for her safety. Mr Justice Smith said the layout of the small apartment was satisfactory and the corporation was not negligent in failing to have a restraining arm fitted to the middle door to prevent it from banging. Mr Justice Smith dismissed the plaintiff's claim with costs to the defendant.
Solicitors: Bowler Geraghty & Co (Dublin) for the plaintiff; Aveen Barry, Law Agent, for the defendant.
