High Court throws out former stable hand's damages case over wheelbarrow injury

Mr Justice Michael Twomey said the incident where Mark Lawless hurt his back while emptying a wheelbarrow was an 'everyday misfortunate mishap' for which racehorse trainer Adrian Keatley was not liable. File picture

A High Court judge has thrown out a case brought by a former stable hand who wanted damages for hurting his back while emptying a wheelbarrow.

Mark Lawless brought proceedings over a March 9, 2016, incident at Rossmore Cottage Stables in The Curragh, Co Kildare, where he was employed by racehorse trainer Adrian Keatley.

Mr Lawless of Carrickhill, Edenderry, Co Offaly, sought compensation from Mr Keatley for injury he allegedly sustained to his back when he emptied soiled hay from a wheelbarrow.

In a judgment, Mr Justice Michael Twomey said this incident was an “everyday misfortunate mishap” for which Mr Keatley was not liable, and dismissed Mr Lawless’ case.

Mr Lawless left his job as a stable hand after about six to eight weeks of work at Mr Keatley’s stables, and currently works as an auctioneer.

The judge noted that the Supreme Court previously ruled that courts should approach personal injury claims with “common sense” and “some degree of scepticism”.

In this vein, the judge said it was his view that if the wheelbarrow incident occurred in Mr Lawless’ own garden, it would be regarded as an “accident”, with no one to blame.

This approach is also relevant in considering the evidence of expert witnesses called during the hearing. 

The judge said:

A court does not require an engineer to tell it that one should empty a wheelbarrow on the flat, and not try to empty a wheelbarrow on an upward incline, since this is basic common sense.

The judge also said it was his view that Mr Lawless was mistaken in the recollection of the incident: on the balance of probabilities, he emptied the wheelbarrow on a flat surface, rather than – as Mr Lawless said during the hearing of the case – an incline.

Emptying the wheelbarrow on an incline is “unorthodox”, the judge said. “If he had done so, in this court’s view, he would have made that claim in his pleadings.” 

Even if Mr Lawless' recollection was correct, the judge said, he was not entitled to make that claim at the hearing. He also said Mr Lawless had a responsibility to ensure the surface he was emptying the wheelbarrow on was flat.

“If he failed to do so and then decided to roll a wheelbarrow up an incline and seek to empty it on that incline, any injury to his back is not the responsibility of his employer,” the judge said.

The judge said it was his preliminary view that the costs of the proceedings at both the High Court and the Circuit Court should be awarded against Mr Lawless. The case had been before the court as an appeal from the Circuit Court.