Posted: July 22nd, 2020
At the High Court a woman has told the Judge that she has submitted a personal injury claim in relation to her alleged slip on a muffin in a Londis store as it has resulted in her becoming an invalid.
Olivia Harte Lynch, with an address at 46 Skreeney Manorhamiliton Co Leitrim, has taken the shop injury compensation action against JNF McGoldrick Ltd trading as McGoldrick’s Londis, Main Street, Dromahair, Co Leitrim due to the injuries she sustained in the accident on August 23, 2012.
Ms Harte Lynch informed that court through her legal representatives that she “has been rendered an invalid” due to the injuries she suffered in the accident eight that tool place on august 23, 2012. In the incident in question she claims that her legs gave way from under her and she landed on her back on the floor of a Londis shop.
The court was informed that there are some arguments being made in relation to alleged contributory negligence on Ms Harte Lynch’s behalf. However, as representative for the defendant in the action Peter Bland SC said it is accepted that Ms Harte Lynch fell in the Londis supermarket.
The claim submitted alleges that the muffin was not removed from the the floor, leaving it in a position of danger for customers and staff. Additionally it is alleged that there was a failure to ensure the floor was cleaned and an alleged failure to erect a warning sign or to cordon off the area until it was completely safe.
Londis refutes all of these claims and that Ms Harte Lynch’s fall took place due to any negligence on their part. .
Legal representative for Londis, Jonathan Kilfeather SC, informed Judge Bernard Barton that there is no doubt Ms Harte Lynch slipped and fell but the issue is whether the fall was due to any alleged negligence.
He also told the judge that there is no insinuation that the fall “was staged “but did refer to medical evidence to be presented by both sides being “diametrically opposed.” He told the court there is also an issue in relation to the extent of the injuries suffered. He added that the defendants were anxious the case proceed.
Mr Justice Bernard Barton was told the action could take two weeks and may not finish before the end of the court term at the end of July. As he was adjourning the matter, Mr Justice Barton said he preferred to take “so contentious a hearing” in one sitting and he will inform the court how the case should proceed on Wednesday.