Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
2.������ Hardiman J. might be more than a little disappointed to learn that not only had claims by parents for injuries to their children in playgrounds continued apace since 2008, but that now, some thirteen years later, there is a new type of claim regarding playgrounds, namely a claim for injuries to adults when they are using swings, not in a hotel, bar or gym, but rather in a children�s playground. This and the other issues which arise in this case can be summarised as follows:
3.������ This case concerns a claim by two adults who were injured when using a swing, not in an adult location, but in a children�s playground. It considers the � chilling effect� of claims such as these on the provision of play or adventure facilities for children (and indeed the provision of goods/services generally to all citizens) and the application of what is � universally known by reasonable adults of normal intelligence� , in other words, common sense, (as highlighted by the Court of Appeal in Cekanova v. Dunnes Stores [2021] IECA 12 ) to such a claim.
4.������ This case also considers a claim made by the plaintiff through her lawyer that an injury which her counsel categorised as a � minor� ankle injury that kept someone out of work for just 10 weeks would nonetheless merit damages for �pain and suffering� (in addition to any out of pocket expenses) of up to �54,700 under the non-binding Book of Quantum (assuming, of course, negligence was established), even though:
•������� the binding case law from the Supreme Court (in Simpson v. Governor of Mountjoy [2021] IESC 81 ) regarded the sum of �7,500 as appropriate compensation for a person who was wrongfully required to slop out for 7.5 months in a prison, and,
•������� it would take a person on the average wage in the State over 1.5 years to earn �54,700 (applying the binding principles adopted by the Supreme Court in McDonagh v. Sunday Newspapers [2018] 2 I.R. 79 for assessing the reasonableness of damages, i.e. �how long and how hard an individual would have to work to earn� the proposed sum), and
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.