The High Court has dismissed an action by a tradesman who suffered serious facial injuries when a ladder he was climbing went from under him.
Brendan Blake (69), from Bayside Glen, Wicklow, brought the case against Thorn Motors Ltd, trading as Michael Tyan Motors, Clondalkin, Dublin, alleging negligence and breach of duty over the accident on April 30th, 2011 in the car dealer's premises.
The claims were denied.
The case began on Tuesday and following a hearing over liability, on Thursday Ms Justice Leonie Reynolds ruled that the car dealer was not liable.
She said Mr Blake was the “author of his own misfortune” by climbing a ladder which was not held by someone or properly secured.
She dismissed the action and awarded costs against Mr Blake.
The court heard Mr Blake, a former aircraft engineer who set up his own tradesman's business in 2006, had climbed the ladder provided by the car dealer to get some floor tiles from a loft area. Mr Blake was employed to lay the tiles in the premises along with a couple of other small jobs.
He had climbed up and down a number of times before, as he ascended the last time, the ladder came away from the wall and he fell some 10 feet to the floor.
He landed on his face, stomach and right wrist suffering serious fractures to his lower and upper jaw, his chin and a number of teeth were knocked out.
He was taken by ambulance to hospital where surgery was carried out. It was claimed he suffered severe pain and discomfort for which he continues to take painkilling medication.
Richard Lyons SC, with Robert Fitzpatrick SC, argued the defendant had a statutory duty, not just to employees but to persons other than employees, to ensure as far as reasonably practicable that there was a safe working environment.
Bernard McDonagh SC, with Brendan Savage, BL, for the defendant, said Mr Blake was an experienced self-employed contractor who had carried out work at height for the defendant prior to the accident.
He said Mr Blake was grossly negligent, was the author of his own misfortune and there was no breach of duty by the defendant.
