Council not responsible for tenant's slip on porch of his local authority home

Judge found it was 'artificial' for tenant to suggest he was a visitor of the council-owned house

Thomas Keegan, 53, had been awarded €105,650 when the action was previously determined in 2017, while liability was being retried by order of the Court of Appeal. Picture: Collins Courts

A man who sustained injuries when he slipped on the porch of his local authority home failed to prove Sligo County Council was “in any way responsible” for the accident, the High Court has found.

Thomas Keegan, 53, had been awarded €105,650 when the action was previously determined in 2017, while liability was being retried by order of the Court of Appeal.

In a fresh judgment, Mr Justice John Jordan found it was “artificial” for Mr Keegan to suggest he was a visitor of the council-owned house at McNeil Drive, Cranmore, Co Sligo, which he rented and occupied.

Mr Keegan had claimed the slippiness of the porch’s terracotta tiling and the angle of the porch to face the prevailing wind and rain in Sligo created a particular hazard, the judge noted. It was alleged the open porch was constantly exposed to being wet and that this exacerbated the problem caused by the slippy mosaic tiles.

The case was originally heard in November 2017 at the High Court sitting in Sligo, which found liability in favour of Mr Keegan and found there was no contributory negligence on his part. 

On appeal by the council, the Court of Appeal decided not to interfere with the award of damages, but it directed the issue of liability be retried.

The accident occurred on November 18, 2013, when Mr Keegan was returning home sometime after 5pm, after visiting a number of pubs in which he had consumed five pints of Guinness, said Mr Justice Jordan. 

He suffered a significant injury to his left ankle, with x-rays revealing a fracture to his left distal tibia and fibula, the judge noted.

The council did not argue the consumption of this level of drink was an act of contributory negligence but argued it as a factor in regard to Mr Keegan’s duty to take reasonable care for his own safety and in his conflicting accounts of how the accident occurred, the judge said.

Expert evidence

Having heard expert evidence from Michael Morris, a professor of surface and interface engineering at Trinity College Dublin, the court was satisfied the unglazed tiles did not pose a danger on the premises. 

Mr Justice Jordan said the court does not know what, if any, dirt or grime or other matter was present on the tiled surface when the plaintiff slipped, although it found it was probably wet.

The plaintiff failed to prove the council was “in any way responsible” for the accident, the judge added.

Mr Keegan’s counsel had further submitted that the council was an “occupier” of the property within the meaning of the word as set out in section 1 of the Occupier’s Liability Act, 1995, said the judge. 

It was also contended that Mr Keegan was attending the dwelling as of right due to being a lawful tenant of the council and that he was, therefore, a “visitor” within the meaning of the word in the 1995 act.

While noting it was not necessary to determine, on account of finding there had been no breach of duty, Mr Justice Jordan found this to be a “flawed” assumption and noted Mr Keegan, as a resident of the property since 2004, had control over the condition and cleanliness of the porch surface.

By reason of the letting agreement, and the level of control of the premises the council retained, it was correct to say the council was an occupier, but Mr Keegan, too, was “clearly” an occupier, the judge said. 

The fact they were both occupiers does not give Mr Keegan a cause of action against the council under the Occupiers Liability Act, Mr Justice Jordan added.