Common-Sense Approach Taken for Employer Liability Claim

Our Insurance & Risk team reviews a recent High Court decision on employer liability. The case involved an employee injured on workplace premises. The common-sense approach by the High Court makes for an interesting read for employers and insurers alike.

The claim[1] arose as a result of an accident at work. Mr Lawless was working as a stable hand on the defendant’s premises. He claimed that he injured his back by tipping an overloaded or heavy wheelbarrow of soiled hay into a shed.

The parties agreed that the wheelbarrow was fit for purpose and was not defective. However, at the engineering inspection six years after the incident, it was alleged that Mr Lawless was required to push the wheelbarrow over an uneven surface on an incline. Mr Lawless also said that he had to tip the wheelbarrow on this upward incline. The employer gave evidence that Mr Lawless was provided with a fork to complete this task. The employer also argued that as Mr Lawless owned horses, he would have been familiar with the process.

In considering liability, the Court questioned whether compensation should follow for an “everyday mishap” simply because it occurred on the premises of a third party with insurance. The Court also considered whether expert evidence is necessary for these incidents where common sense should prevail.

The Court said that claims should be approached with “common sense and some degree of scepticism”. If an accident occurs through an ordinary everyday matter/task, engineering evidence should not be needed. Not only is this based on common sense, but the Court noted that most people should be very familiar with carrying out everyday tasks.

Referencing McCeoghen v Kelly[2], the Court reiterated that expert evidence does not form part of the personal injuries summons upon which the claim is founded. As noted in Morgan v ESB, the plaintiff must set out their claim in detail in the personal injuries summons in order for a defendant to meet the claim against them. In this case, Mr Lawless had not mentioned any issue of an uneven surface or an incline until the engineering inspection.

Ultimately, the claim brought by Mr Lawless was dismissed. The Court said that just because an accident happens in work does not automatically make it an employer’s issue. This is particularly the case if the same accident at home would be considered an “everyday mishap”. An employer is not the insurer of minor everyday incidents.

The Court noted an employer should only be found liable if they have failed to take reasonable care. The Court concluded that in this instance Mr Lawless suffered an injury from an unfortunate accident, with no one to blame. The claim was dismissed.

Conclusion

This is a useful decision in defence litigation regarding the responsibility of an employer for simple common place accidents/ injuries. It reiterates that simply because an injury occurs at work, it does not automatically make it a “workplace accident” for employer liability insurance to compensate.

For more information and expert advice, please contact a member of our Insurance & Risk team.

The content of this article is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other advice.

[1] Lawless v Keatley [2025] IEHC 364

[2] [2021] IECA 123