Personal Injury Claim for School Yard Fall Dismissed

The High Court has dismissed personal injury proceedings arising from a fall on the grounds of a school yard.

In Dinnegan v The Trustees & Board of Management of Loughegar National School [2025] IEHC 423, the court identified inconsistencies with the evidence provided in support of the claim and found that the accident occurred during ordinary children’s play and was, therefore, incidental to typical school yard activity. The court held that this of itself, and with nothing more, does not give rise to any liability on the part of the school.

Background

The plaintiff claimed that when participating in a race with other pupils she came into contact with a raised steel grating on a concrete footpath, which caused her to trip and fall, resulting in a fracture dislocation of her left elbow. She underwent two surgical procedures and engaged in a course of intensive physiotherapy. She regained full function in her elbow but was left with residual surgical scarring. She was 9 years of age at the time of the incident.

Liability Denied

The defendants denied liability on three grounds, namely that;

• The plaintiff’s claim was fundamentally undermined by the fact it was originally advanced on an entirely different basis, namely that the plaintiff had been tripped by another pupil.

• The evidence of an SNA, together with CCTV footage, indicated that the fall took place at a location that was well removed from the grating.

• The grating was not defective at the time of the incident because a defect was not present when inspected 6 weeks later by a claims investigator engaged by the defendants’ insurers.

Cause of the Accident

The court was of the view that the plaintiff had not offered any satisfactory explanation for the fundamental shift of how the accident occurred. In the Personal Injury Summons, issued in February 2017, it was specifically alleged that the plaintiff had fallen by reason of another pupil tripping her. The Particulars of Negligence and Breach of Duty relied upon included a failure to provide adequate supervision in the school yard at a time when children were permitted to run.

This position was maintained in Replies to Particulars delivered in July 2017 and further developed in an Addendum to Particulars of Negligence and Breach of Duty delivered in February 2018, where it was alleged, in addition to the original supervision claim, that the school had failed to prohibit or discourage running during break time.

However, following a joint engineering inspection in July 2018, the plaintiff attributed the fall to the grating, which was found by the plaintiff engineer to be defective. An Amended Personal Injuries Summons was issued in May 2019.

The court noted that plaintiff had attempted to explain the shift by reference to her age, confusion and emotional state and that while the court did have due regard to the fact she was only 9 years old at the time of the accident, there remained a fundamental inconsistency from the position that was maintained through verified pleadings and solicitor instructions over a number of years. In addition, evidence given in respect of the plaintiff’s participation in extracurricular activities after the accident raised serious questions about the accuracy and reliability of the plaintiff’s recollection of events.

Conflicting Evidence

The court preferred the evidence of the SNA, as supported by the CCTV footage, as to the sequence of events, including a finding that the accident had occurred some distance from the location of the grating. The provenance of the CCTV was not formally established but the court was satisfied that it was date stamped with the correct date of the accident and aligned in all material respects with the evidence of the SNA and her description of events.

Conclusion

The court held that the evidence of the SNA, its consistency with the CCTV and the plaintiff’s inconsistencies and inaccuracies in relation to both core and peripheral matters lead to a finding that the plaintiff’s fall was not caused by contact with allegedly defective grating but instead occurred at a removed location without identifiable external cause.

The court also held that even if the plaintiff fell while running, the incident arose during ordinary children’s play and was therefore incidental to typical school yard activity which, of itself and with nothing more, does not give rise to any liability on the part of the school. In respect of the claims made regarding supervision, the court was satisfied that general supervision was in place.

The claim was dismissed.