logo
Stable hand who said he hurt back while emptying wheelbarrow loses injury claim against racehorse trainer

Stable hand who said he hurt back while emptying wheelbarrow loses injury claim against racehorse trainer

Irish Times4 hours ago

A racehorse trainer cannot be found liable for a back injury allegedly suffered by a stable hand when using a wheelbarrow in a 'most unorthodox' manner, a High Court judge ruled.
An employer is not liable for 'everyday unfortunate mishaps' to employees that could as easily happen at home just because it occurred on the premises of someone with insurance or means to pay compensation, Mr Justice Michael Twomey said.
The courts, he said, should approach such claims with 'common sense and a degree of scepticism'.
He made the comments on Thursday, dismissing a damages claim by Mark Lawless against racehorse trainer Adrian Keatley over an injury allegedly suffered on March 9th, 2016, at Rossmore Cottage Stables, The Curragh, Co Kildare.
READ MORE
His preliminary view was to grant Mr Keatley his costs, but final orders will be made later if the parties cannot agree them.
Mr Lawless, who in March 2016 was working as a stable hand for Mr Keatley, claimed the injury occurred when he was emptying a heavy wheelbarrow of soiled hay into a dungstead, a three-sided structure with concrete walls and a concrete floor.
His job was to fill 10 to 15 full wheelbarrows daily with soiled hay from horse boxes and empty those into the dungstead. He had worked six to eight weeks for Mr Keatley, but is now working as an auctioneer.
Mr Lawless had called engineering evidence in support of his claim that his emptying of the wheelbarrow, which the judge described as 'perfectly fit for use', constituted an 'unsafe system of work'.
His key claim at the hearing was that he decided to empty the wheelbarrow when it was on an upward incline of soiled hay, the judge said. It was claimed Mr Keatley was liable for the back spasm he suffered while doing this and the resulting injury.
Mr Lawless had said he was filling the dungstead on his own, the judge noted, but a machine operator attended the stables every four to six days to push soiled hay towards the back of the dungstead, intervals 'well within' what Mr Lawless's engineer considered appropriate.
A court does not require an engineer to tell it one should empty a wheelbarrow on the flat and not try to empty it on an upward incline, the judge said. That was 'basic common sense'.
It was 'curious, to say the least', the claim of injury when emptying the wheelbarrow on an upward incline only surfaced six years after the claim issued in 2017 and only after an engineer took photos showing inclines of material in the dungstead operated by a different racehorse trainer.
On the balance of probabilities, the judge did not find it credible that Mr Lawless, who had 'plenty of experience' using wheelbarrows and emptying out horseboxes in his own home, operated the wheelbarrow in the 'unorthodox' manner suggested.
It seemed Mr Lawless's recollection of the events was not accurate – that was human nature and not a reflection of the honesty of a witness, he said. Other inconsistencies in Mr Lawless's recollection included a medical note in April 2016 which stated his problem arose from a fall 'while looking after a horse'.
Mr Lawless did not damage his back while emptying the wheelbarrow on an upward incline, the judge said. It seemed his injury, if it happened as a result of emptying the wheelbarrow, was an unfortunate everyday mishap when doing the 'everyday task of emptying a wheelbarrow in the usual manner, on a flat surface' and for which his employer 'has absolutely no liability'.
Even if Mr Lawless did use the wheelbarrow as claimed, the employer had no liability for not providing a safe system of work because Mr Lawless's task was to ensure the dungstead floor was clear so a flat surface was available from which to empty the wheelbarrow, the judge said.
Another ground for dismissing the claim was because the incline claim made at the hearing was not originally pleaded, he said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Minister denies Sinn Féin's claim anti-terrorism Bill contains a ‘Kneecap' clause
Minister denies Sinn Féin's claim anti-terrorism Bill contains a ‘Kneecap' clause

Irish Times

timean hour ago

  • Irish Times

Minister denies Sinn Féin's claim anti-terrorism Bill contains a ‘Kneecap' clause

Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan has rejected Opposition claims that Kneecap band member Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh could be prosecuted under antiterrorism legislation being introduced in the Dáil. Sinn Féin justice spokesman Matt Carthy described provisions of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism Offences) (Amendment) Bill as the 'Kneecap clause' in the wake of the prosecution in England of the Belfast band member whose stage name is 'Mo Chara'. He was charged under UK antiterrorism legislation with showing support for a proscribed organisation. It is alleged he draped himself in a Hizbullah flag at a London gig last November and shouted 'up Hamas , up Hizbullah', referring to the Palestinian and Lebanese militant groups respectively. He is contesting the charge. The proposed new Irish legislation broadens the category of terrorist offences to bring it in line with a 2017 EU directive, to include travelling or facilitating travel for the purposes of terrorism and receiving or providing training for terrorism. READ MORE The Bill also revises the definition of provoking terrorism, stating that the glorification of a terrorist activity, including by praise or celebration, 'may be considered publicly provoking the commission of a terrorist offence'. Mr Carthy, who called this the 'Kneecap clause', said it is 'deeply problematic' because 'there is a real fear that this inclusion could lead to charges against political activism and legitimate freedom of expression, similar to the manner in which Mo Chara from Kneecap is currently facing terrorism charges in the UK'. This sort of antiterrorism legislation 'undercuts civil liberties, free speech and the rule of law, with little or no effect on actual terrorist activity', he said. 'It is exactly the type of language that has been used, in the North in particular, to attempt to curtail the rights of families to remember loved ones killed in the conflict in the six counties. It has equally been used in arguments against commemorating the 1916 Rising or wearing an Easter lily,' he said. But Mr O'Callaghan said 'what Kneecap is being prosecuted for in the UK would not happen here'. [ Fans rally behind Kneecap after London court appearance: 'If you're supporting Ireland, you're supporting Kneecap' Opens in new window ] 'Under this legislation, people would be entitled to say they support Hamas, although it has been involved in reprehensible behaviour,' he said. Describing the UK legislation as 'alarmingly wide' and a provision 'that would not be enacted by this House', he said that under the UK law it is an offence if a person in a public place 'wears, carries or displays an article in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation'. Sinn Féin's Mark Ward said people singing republican songs about Irish heroes could be prosecuted under the legislation. However, the Minister said the deputy could sing whatever songs he wants. 'People can sing songs about the Boys of Barr na Sráide and the Men Behind the Wire. In loyalist parts of Belfast, they can sing whatever they want.' He said TDs' 'concern that this will have a restrictive impact on protest or freedom of expression is not accurate'. 'The only time your message is going to come within the criminal law and face criminal sanction is if it is being done with the intention of inciting someone else to commit criminal terrorist activity.'

Sinn Féin proposes orders to protect victims of sexual violence after offenders released
Sinn Féin proposes orders to protect victims of sexual violence after offenders released

Irish Times

time3 hours ago

  • Irish Times

Sinn Féin proposes orders to protect victims of sexual violence after offenders released

Victims of sexual violence could get increased protections from any potential threat by their attackers upon their release from prison under proposed legislation being put forward by Sinn Féin . Judges would be able to issue civil protection orders to apply after the offender's release under the Bill being put forward by the party. Protection orders typically ban contact with a victim, using or threatening to use violence against them, and watching or being near a victim's home. Sinn Féin's justice spokesman Matt Carthy was due to introduce the Victims of Sexual Violence Civil Protection Orders Bill 2025 at first stage in the Dáil on Thursday. READ MORE He said the legislation came about as a result of engagements he had had with a number of victims of sexual assault who 'have got increasingly worried and anxious as the date of the release of the perpetrator comes closer'. [ Ireland was a place where ruthless husbands were free to 'bounce a boot off' their wives Opens in new window ] Mr Carthy said recourse available to the victims 'has been incredibly limited', and that victims are 'dependent on the gardaí to follow up on other provisions in place'. His party colleague, Dublin South Central TD Máire Devine, said there is an 'epidemic' of violence against women, much of it perpetrated by former partners. She said protection of women and children, once offenders are released from custody, is 'of the utmost importance'. Mr Carthy said Sinn Féin's legislation would allow for a judge to apply a post-release civil protection order for offenders at the time of the initial trial, when a suspect is found guilty and sentenced. [ Anti-stalking protection orders: 'There are a lot of people who have been waiting a long time for this' Opens in new window ] He said: 'At present under the harassment law there is a provision for judges to apply these types of orders post-release, but this isn't there in terms of the civil protection orders in relation to sexual violence cases, so there's an anomaly there.' The Cavan-Monaghan TD said he is hopeful of support from all political parties and particularly the Government so the legislation can be enacted 'as a matter of priority'.

‘€100k a minute, no trespassing' sign put up on land at centre of row over unlawful peat extraction
‘€100k a minute, no trespassing' sign put up on land at centre of row over unlawful peat extraction

Irish Times

time4 hours ago

  • Irish Times

‘€100k a minute, no trespassing' sign put up on land at centre of row over unlawful peat extraction

A sign with the signature of a man who has said he will not comply with orders to stop extracting peat from a Co Laois bog has been erected saying anyone who 'trespasses' on the land will be charged '€100,000 per minute', the High Court has heard. Liam Gorman, Silverwood, Mountmellick, Co Laois, has been repeatedly ordered by the court not to trespass on the 400-acre Garryowen Bog in Tinnahinch, owned by Bord na Móna Biomass (BnMB) Ltd. The court has found BnMB is the owner and it is Mr Gorman who is trespassing. Mr Gorman has claimed his family owned some of the land for generations and that it had been abandoned by Bord na Móna. He claimed he was now living in a caravan on part of it and disputed the BnMB ownership. READ MORE He said he was extracting peat to sell to farmers as bedding for cattle. At one point, he disputed the jurisdiction of the courts and specifically claimed the High Court was 'legally non-existent'. BnMB last month applied to the court to have him jailed for contempt for repeatedly failing to obey orders to stop extracting peat and to remove large machinery, and a number of men working for him, from the land. That application was adjourned to allow for a hearing of what Mr Gorman claimed were his assertions of ownership over two particular plots of land and to put in a counterclaim against the BnMB case. The matter came for hearing this month before Mr Justice Oisín Quinn over two days, on both of which Mr Gorman, who represented himself, walked out of the hearing accompanied by a number of individuals. The court heard a notice , signed by Mr Gorman, had been erected on the bog stating: 'Warning Notice – No Trespass' and 'Common Law Jurisdiction Applies Exclusively'. 'There will be a charge of €100,000.00 per minute per man, woman, or corporation and for any incursion what so ever', it said. In a judgment, Mr Justice Quinn found Mr Gorman was trespassing and said all but a small triangle of the land was owned by BnMB. The judge said that on the first day of the hearing he refused Mr Gorman an adjournment to get legal advice after the court heard he had twice discharged firms of solicitors since the case began more than a year ago. Mr Gorman claimed he also wanted to employ a forensic investigator, but did not elaborate on why or why he needed new solicitors. He left the court, after again trying to challenge its jurisdiction, and did not wait to hear the evidence. The judge said Mr Gorman returned the next day and repeated his complaints as well as suggesting he had 'adverse possession', commonly known as squatter's rights, of the land. He repeated he would continue to extract peat no matter what happened in court and left again. In his decision, Mr Justice Quinn said he was satisfied BnMB was the owner of the lands with the exception of a small triangle which was unregistered, but which may be partly owned by an unrelated company. Mr Gorman had been unlawfully using some type of access road and had unlawfully carried out works such as peat extraction from the land and from one plot in particular, the judge said. He had wrongly placed a caravan on that particular plot, the judge said. Drone images indicated the use of substantial machinery. Mr Gorman had told the court he had returned to the land last April, having 'discharged' himself from the obligations to comply with the orders made in the case, he said. The judge was satisfied Mr Gorman intended to continue trespassing. Mr Justice Quinn made orders restraining Mr Gorman, and all having notice of the orders, from trespassing or interfering with BnMB's use or exercise of its rights over the lands. He also said Mr Gorman was prohibited from bringing any machinery or other equipment on to the lands and from extracting peat.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store