The High Court (Twomey J) delivered judgment in the case of Lawless v Keatley on the 26th June 2025. The case concerns an alleged incident on an employer's premises on the 9th March 2016 wherein the Plaintiff suffered an injury to his back while emptying a wheelbarrow on a upward incline.
Twomey J considered whether incidents such as that which befell the Plaintiff should lead to compensation simply because they occurred 'on the premises of a third party with insurance.' Mr Justice Twomey stated that, in his view, the plaintiff's accident, 'if it happened in a domestic setting would be regarded as an unfortunate everyday mishap or accident'.
Furthermore, the judgment considers the usefulness, to the courts, of expert evidence from engineers in relation to these "unfortunate everyday mishaps, or whether the courts are capable of assessing those everyday mishaps by applying "common sense".
Decision
In dismissing the claim of Mr Lawless, Twomey J referred to and cited the recent decisions of the Court of Appeal in Nemeth v Topaz Energy Group Limited [2021]1 , the Supreme Court in Rosberg Partners v L.K Shields [2018]2 and the Court of Appeal in Morgan v ESB [2021]3 and stated that:
1. An employer is not an insurer of an employee
Twomey J found, as was the case in Nemeth, that the plaintiff was undertaking an action that, if it had taken place in the plaintiff's home or garden, would be considered an unfortunate everyday mishap.
Twomey J opined that 'an employer is not liable for an injury resulting from an employee doing an everyday task, simply because he/she happened to do that task at work'. In very plain language, Twomey J found that 'just because an employer has an insurance policy for accidents at work does not mean he/she ….should be regarded as being liable for unfortunate everyday mishaps'. The test is: has the employer failed to exercise reasonable care?
Twomey J found the task the Plaintiff was carrying out at the time of his alleged accident - emptying a wheelbarrow – was an everyday task, which required no specific training. There was no defect in the wheelbarrow. As such it seemed to the Court that 'there could be no liability on the part of the employer, for not providing a safe system of work.'
2. Courts should apply 'common sense' and 'scepticism' to personal injury claims
The Court cited O'Donnell J (as he then was) in Rosberg, who stated that 'courts should approach claims ….not simply on the basis of the genuineness or plausibility of witnesses, but by applying common sense and some degree of scepticism'.
Twomey J referred to Nemeth, where the Court of Appeal found that 'when a court is dealing with expert evidence from engineers on "ordinary everyday matters with which most people would be expected to be familiar' the court can bring 'its own common sense to bear".'
The judgment considered that while expert evidence might be required in a "highly specialised area of …..medical or scientific expertise", a 'court does not require an engineer to tell it that one should empty a wheelbarrow on an upward incline, since this is basic common sense'.
Implications
The decision by the High Court in Lawless reaffirms the principle that employers are not insurers for every workplace incident, especially where the tasks at hand align with "everyday" domestic activities. The case calls for the application of common sense in cases involving everyday tasks, criticises the over reliance on expert evidence and marks a call for realism in personal injury litigation.
[1] [2021] IECA 252.
[2] [2018] 2 I.R 811.
[3] [2021] IECA 29.
