Adults are obliged to take care for their own safety!

Once again the Court of Appeal produces some common sense in slapping down a High Court decision.

But isn't it worrying (and expensive) that the High Court came out with this in the first place...?

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0721/892079-oliver-plunkett-pub-cork-saundra-oflynn/

"The judge also said she "could not disagree more" with the finding Ms O'Flynn was not to be faulted in any way for her finger tip being severed.
Adults are obliged to take care for their own safety and a publican's duty is to take reasonable care for the safety of those socialising on their premises, she said.
It was "untenable" to propose an adult should be considered blameless, in the legal sense, for an injury suffered when they blindly placed their hand behind them such that their fingers were placed in the hinged recess of a door.
From infancy, we are warned of the risk of injury from closing doors and Ms O'Flynn was the "author of her own misfortune", Ms Justice Mary Irvine said.
There was no basis for the High Court finding the pub was negligent because the automatic door was not set at the slowest speed possible, she said."

hullaballoo

Bit of a strange one that. I can see it being appealed further.

It's a big swing from the Plaintiff being 0% to blame and the pub being 100% to the Plaintiff being 100% to blame and the pub being 0% to blame.

Of course, not having heard any of the evidence or submissions and being totally unaware of the circumstances of the case, I couldn't possibly give a view one way or another as to the lie of the land. That said, having an automatic door that can close fully, even where there are body parts likely to be severed, seems very risky. Some might even say unsafe.

Samuel T. Cogley

Hardly common sense at all - what risk assessment was done on the door, what account and what procedures where put in place for delayed reactions etc. due to having drink taken. I can't speak to the specific case as I've not seen the evidence or decision but these cases always turn on their own facts which we never know in full. One person could do this on a Monday and be, rightly, awarded €250K and someone else could do it on a Tuesday and rightly be entitled to nothing.

lifeandtimes

Generally it goes down to how easy the establishment make it for people to hurt themselves.

If you are sitting in a chair and go to stand up by placing your hand on the only adjacent wall for leverage,which happens to be a door and your finger is caught by someone using the door, the establishment at fault for making your only recourse to get up a potential hazerd.

However if you sit beside a door and need to be up,view said door and it's hinge etc Still place your hand there and it's caught then the establishment can't be held liable as you will need to have a duty of care to yourself . I.e. knowing not to put your hand on a hot iron etc