McDonald’s damages case fails
The High Court heard of evidence given from the plaintiff’s Facebook page in which a friend predicted “you are going to be minted because of McDonald’s”, and to which the plaintiff wrote back: “Ha ha ha ha.”
Jonathan Dineen, of 28 Fairview, South Douglas Rd, Cork, brought the case against McDonald’s on Winthop St, Cork, arising out of an alleged accident on a wet floor in the premises at 3.30am on December 27, 2010, following that night’s St Stephen’s Day celebrations.
Mr Justice Henry Abbott said: “He said he was drinking cider and had six pints. He said that within his capacity he could drink 12 to 13 pints. He was drinking until 12.30. There was a gap in the history of events — about three hours — and the narrative is taken up at about 3.30.
“The plaintiff gives an account of going to McDonald’s to go to the toilet. He asked a friend for €1 so he was able to avail of the euro meal — they are famous for their euro burger introductory offer.
“He slipped, he was able to steady himself, he subsequently slipped and fell backwards and saved himself by putting his hands behind his back and he broke two bones in his right forearm. On that simple account, he could have an action [for damages] but one has to measure the weight of evidence against that account.
“The plaintiff got up and left McDonald’s. He noticed his right arm ballooning and swelling up. It is a very curious aspect of the case that it occurred at 3.30 in the morning at McDonald’s but it was well past 5am when he arrived at the Mercy. It is a very curious and questionable aspect of the case that it took him that length of time to get registered in the books of the Mercy hospital.
“The bottom line in forensic terms is that there was a gap that should have been closed in evidential terms.”
Mr Justice Abbott referred to Dineen’s evidence of being attacked by some party and getting a bloody nose but remaining upright throughout the incident.
The judge said: “It is certainly an incident that would put the court on its guard.”
The judge said that altercation created ‘novus actus interveniens’, a new intervening act between whatever happened in McDonald’s and how Dineen presented at the hospital.
Mr Justice Abbott raised the defence evidence of McDonald’s supervision, inspection, and cleaning habits and the fact that they dispose of CCTV after 35 days and that they were not asked about CCTV in this case until after that time elapsed.
“The court cannot speculate on behalf of the plaintiff. The court cannot find for the plaintiff. I dismiss the plaintiff’s case,” Judge Abbott concluded.
Seán Lynch SC produced entries from Dineen’s Facebook page on the opening day of the case, including one which was sent to the plaintiff by a friend. It read: “Ha ha… you are going to be minted because of McDonald’s”. Dineen’s written reply was: “Ha ha ha ha”.
Counsel for McDonald’s commented: “It might be a laughing matter for you but it is not a laughing matter for McDonald’s.”
