Introduction

The case of Kennedy v Hughes Dairy Ltd [1989] ILRM 117 arises from a workplace accident in which the Plaintiff, a forklift truck driver, sustained a laceration to his forearm after falling while carrying a crate of milk bottles in an environment where broken glass was a routine feature of the work.

The Plaintiff’s duties included transporting crates of full milk bottles to a loading bay for dispatch. Once the lorries had departed, a significant number of crates remained, many of which contained one or more broken bottles alongside intact bottles. It fell to the Plaintiff to remove broken bottles, stack the remaining crates, and clear broken glass from the ground by hand using a brush and shovel.

On the date of the accident, the Plaintiff was carrying a crate of bottles to a designated position. While doing so, he stood on the neck of a broken bottle, lost his footing, and fell. In the course of the fall, the bottles in the crate broke against one another and one cut the Plaintiff’s forearm above the wrist.

The Plaintiff contended that the injury was a foreseeable consequence of working in an environment where broken glass was constantly present, and that the Defendant had failed to provide adequate personal protective equipment. In particular, it was alleged that the Defendant ought to have supplied gauntlet-length gloves capable of protecting the lower forearm, rather than gloves protecting the hand alone.

Legislation and Case Law

The case concerns the scope of the common law duty of care owed by an employer, including the obligation to provide a safe place and system of work, and appropriate protective equipment where employees are exposed to foreseeable risk of injury.

The Supreme Court considered the well-established standard articulated in Bradley v Córas Iompair Éireann [1976] IR 217, namely whether the employer had taken the precautions that a reasonable and prudent employer would have taken in the circumstances. The duty does not impose strict liability, but requires the employer to act reasonably having regard to the risks inherent in the work being undertaken.

The Court also had regard to wider authorities on employer liability and protective measures, including Morton v William Dixon Ltd (1909) SC 807 and Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367, reflecting the principle that the adequacy of safety measures must be assessed in light of the foreseeable injury profile associated with the work.

A central issue in the case was whether the provision of protective equipment must be tailored to the specific risks of the task. Where work is carried out in an environment where broken glass is a persistent hazard, the question arises as to whether the employer is required to anticipate injuries extending beyond the most obvious points of contact, and to provide protection accordingly

Decision

The proceedings came before the High Court, where the Plaintiff called expert evidence to the effect that there was a foreseeable and significant risk of injury arising from the presence of broken bottles in the workplace, including the type of injury sustained by the Plaintiff.

However, that evidence was limited in its application, as it was based on practices in the glass industry and did not establish the standard of care applicable to milk distribution operations. At the conclusion of the Plaintiff’s evidence, the Defendant successfully applied to have the case withdrawn from the jury.

The Plaintiff’s claim accordingly did not succeed.

Notwithstanding the outcome, the decision is instructive in its treatment of employer liability in the context of personal protective equipment. The Court did not accept that the evidence presented established that a reasonable and prudent employer in the Defendant’s position was required to provide gauntlet-length gloves.

Takeaway

This case illustrates the importance of grounding workplace injury claims in precise and industry-specific evidence. It is not sufficient to establish that a risk of injury exists in a general sense; it must be shown that the particular employer, operating in the relevant industry, ought reasonably to have taken the specific precaution relied upon.

The decision highlights that the provision of personal protective equipment is not evaluated in the abstract. The Court will consider whether the equipment provided was appropriate having regard to the actual work being undertaken and the foreseeable risks arising from it.

For employees, the case underscores the importance of evidence as to workplace practices, the prevalence of hazards, and the adequacy of the protective measures in place.

For employers, it reinforces that while they are not insurers of employee safety, they must be able to demonstrate that the systems and equipment provided are reasonably sufficient in light of the known risks of the work.

Further information

This article was prepared for informational purposes only. For further advice, please email workclaim@crushell.ie or contact the offices of Crushell & Co Solicitors.

About Crushell & Co

 Crushell & Co is a specialist firm advising on the application of law in the Irish workplace.

Our Dublin-based solicitors have particular expertise in workplace injury litigation, regularly acting on behalf of employees who have suffered injuries arising from unsafe systems of work, inadequate training, or failures in workplace safety procedures.

We understand that a workplace injury can have serious consequences for an individual’s health, livelihood, and financial security. We work closely with our clients to identify the root causes of workplace accidents, gather the necessary evidence, and advance strong, well-supported claims for compensation.

We are experienced in pursuing workplace injury claims through the Courts and achieving meaningful outcomes for injured workers, while providing clear and practical guidance at every stage of the process.

We translate complex legal issues into practical legal options, adapting our strategy to meet each client’s specific circumstances and objectives.

Conntect: @CrushellLaw or www.crushell.ie