IEHC 99 — IEHC 99 — High Court

THE HIGH COURT

[2026] IEHC 99

[Record No. 2025/5053P]

BETWEEN

SHARON WALSH

PLAINTIFF

AND

JUNIPER ORTHODONTICS LIMITED

DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Barr delivered electronically on the 26th day of

February 2026.

Introduction.

1. The plaintiff is 54 years of age. She had worked as a dental assistant with the

defendant in its orthodontic practice from 2007 until the date of the accident on 20 June

2016. 2

2. At 15:00 hours that day while the plaintiff was descending a flight of stairs in

the clinic, she stepped on the hose of a vacuum cleaner, she lost her balance and

stumbled, causing an inversion injury to her right ankle.

3. Investigation revealed that the plaintiff had suffered an avulsion fracture of the

right distal fibula. An MRI scan taken almost 8 years later, on 29 March 2024, revealed

that the plaintiff had suffered a strain injury to her distal tibiofibular syndesmosis, as

well as to the lateral ligament complex. The distal tibiofibular syndesmosis appeared to

have developed a ganglion cyst in the area as a result of the injury. There was a partial

tear to her lateral ligament complex. The scan also revealed that the plaintiff had

suffered a longitudinal split tear of her peroneus brevis.

4. In these proceedings the plaintiff sues the defendant as her employer for

damages in negligence in respect of the personal injuries and financial losses suffered

by her as a result of the accident.

The Evidence.

5. The clinic where the plaintiff works is a one-man orthodontic practice. The

clinic itself is housed in a building where patients enter through doors that are accessed

by using external steps up to the entrance doors, which lead onto a return landing

between a short flight of stairs leading up to the reception and treatment room, or

leading down the stairs to the waiting room area in the basement.

6. The locus of the accident is shown in the photographs taken by the plaintiff's

engineer Mr O'Reilly. Photo 1 shows the doors through which patients would enter the

clinic. Photo 2 shows the interior of the premises as they enter through those

doors. Straight ahead of the person and slightly to their left is the short flight of stairs 3

leading up to the main reception area, with the treatment room to its right. Also shown

in photo 2, to the right side, is the short flight of stairs leading down towards the area

where the waiting room was situated. Photos 3 and 4 show a closer view of the flight

of stairs leading down to the waiting room.

7. Photo 5 shows the bottom of those stairs with a storeroom to the right of the

picture. Photo 6 shows a close-up of the steps at the bottom of that flight of stairs.

8. The plaintiff's accident occurred in the following way: at approximately 15:00

hours there was a gap in the patient schedule, as there was no patient due for a 30 minute

period between 15:00 hours and 15:30 hours. As was normal practice in the clinic when

there was no patient being treated, the plaintiff and on occasion, the dental

nurse/receptionist, Ms. Brown, would carry out general cleaning inside the clinic.

9. On this occasion, the plaintiff had commenced vacuum cleaning the lower flight

of stairs. She was using a Dyson model vacuum cleaner. However, it was an old model

which was similar to a normal vacuum cleaner. A Dyson model vacuum cleaner similar

to that in use at the time of the accident, is shown in photographs 15 and 16 of the

defendant's booklet of photographs.

10. As can be seen from these photos, the hoover in question was very similar to

other hoovers of a similar make. It had a body which rolls on wheels and in which a

bag collects dust. It was powered by an electric cable which would be plugged into the

wall. The other part of the hoover was pretty standard to all hoovers, being a nozzle, to

which was attached an extendable rigid arm and into which, leading from the top of the

rigid arm to the body of the hoover itself, was a flexible hose through which the air

would pass carrying the dust and other debris from the floor surface.

11. The plaintiff stated that she had commenced the cleaning operation at the bottom

of the stairs as shown in photo 5 of the plaintiff's booklet of photos. The plaintiff stated 4

that she was cleaning the third step from the bottom when she decided that it would be

necessary for her to switch off the hoover, ascend the stairs, and check that her

colleague, Ms. Brown, was not on the phone. This was necessary because if the hoover

was operated while Ms. Brown was on the phone to a patient or a supplier, she would

not be able to hear the conversation due to the noise of the hoover. For that reason,

when the plaintiff was hoovering the lower flight of stairs, she had to stop from time to

time; ascend the stairs to the landing or onto the upper flight of stairs to check that the

receptionist was not on the phone.

12. The plaintiff stated that although she was only on the third step from the bottom,

she had ascended the stairs approximately six times between the time that she had

started the cleaning manoeuvre at the foot of the stairs and this particular occasion, for

the purpose of checking whether the receptionist was on the phone.

13. On this occasion, having turned off the hoover and having left the rigid arm

leaning against the banister to the right as shown in photograph 5, with the nozzle

resting on the ground at the bottom of the stairs, the plaintiff ascended the lower flight

of stairs and went up onto the upper flight of stairs, from where she observed that Ms.

Brown was on the phone.

14. The plaintiff stated that she waited until the receptionist had finished speaking

on the telephone, at which time she descended the upper flight of stairs, crossed the

small return landing and proceeded to descend the lower flight of stairs. She stated that

on the afternoon in question it had been very sunny, as a result, her eyes had been

somewhat blinded by the sunlight streaming through the entrance doors as she

descended the upper flight of stairs.

15. The plaintiff stated that unknown to her, the rigid arm of the hoover, which had

been left standing against the banister on the lower flight of stairs, had fallen over to 5

the left as one looks at the flight of stairs as shown in photo 5, with the result that the

flexible hose was lying across the third step from the bottom on the lower flight of

stairs. The plaintiff descended the lower flight of stairs and stood on the flexible hose,

which she had not seen. This caused her to lose her balance; she stumbled forward to

her right, causing an inversion injury to her right ankle. The plaintiff stated that she did

not fall onto the ground when she had stumbled, but had twisted her ankle quite badly.

16. The plaintiff stated that she continued to work on for the remainder of the day

until approximately 18:00 hours. She stated that as she was leaving the premises that

evening in the company of the receptionist, Ms. Brown asked her why she was

limping. The plaintiff stated that she responded that she had stepped on the flexible hose

of the hoover and had stumbled forward causing an injury to her right ankle. The

plaintiff stated that Ms. Brown advised her not to inform Mr. Buckley, the orthodontist

who owned the practice, about the accident, as it would make him angry. The plaintiff

stated that it was for that reason that she had not informed him of the circumstances of

the accident. The plaintiff's account of this conversation is hotly disputed by Ms.

Brown.

17. In cross-examination, the plaintiff accepted that she had left the hoover at the

bottom of the stairs when she had gone up to check whether the receptionist was on the

phone. She accepted that because she had left it there, she knew that it was in that

location. However, she stated that she was not aware that the steel arm leading from the

nozzle of the hoover, which had been resting against the banister, had fallen over while

she had been upstairs waiting for the receptionist to conclude her telephone call.

18. The plaintiff stated that she had not seen the arm of the hoover that had fallen

over, nor the flexible tube leading from it, which had come to lie across the surface of

the step. She stated that she had been blinded by the strong sunlight coming through the 6

entrance doors as she had descended the upper flight of stairs. She accepted that when

descending the lower flight of stairs, the entrance doors were behind her. The plaintiff

stated that she had not seen the hose in the position where it had come to rest, due to

the fact that her eyes were adjusting from the glare of the sun while she was descending

the lower flight of stairs.

19. The plaintiff accepted that there was CCTV recording in the interior of the

clinic. She accepted that she was aware that that recording would be overwritten after

one month, unless it was specifically downloaded. She accepted that the first notice of

any claim arising out of this accident had been the letter sent by her solicitor in April

2018. She denied that she had waited that long so as to ensure that there would be no

CCTV record of the circumstances of the accident.

20. The plaintiff denied that that letter had been the first notice received by the

defendant of the circumstances of the accident and, in particular ,of the likelihood of

any claim arising from it, due to the fact that she had told the receptionist of the

circumstances of the accident on the day that it had happened. She stated that she was

sure that the receptionist would have told her employer what the plaintiff had said to

her as they left the premises that evening.

21. The plaintiff reiterated that she had not made any mention of a claim, or of the

specifics of the accident to the defendant because Ms. Brown had said to her “Don't tell

John, he has a temper”.

22. It was put to the plaintiff that her medical records disclosed that several of the

initial medical attendances failed to make any mention of her falling or stumbling as a

result of tripping on the hose of a hoover at her place of work. In particular, it was put

to the plaintiff that the note of the doctor employed in Care Doc, who had initially

examined the plaintiff, recorded that she had complained of a fall while going down 7

stairs at work, but with no mention of any hoover. The plaintiff stated that she had told

the A&E doctors that she had stood on a hoover and had stumbled.

23. It was put to the plaintiff that the note from the A&E Department of South

Tipperary General Hospital made no reference to any hoover. The plaintiff stated that

she had told the foreign doctor, who had treated her in A&E, that she had stood on the

hose of a hoover. She stated that he may not have recorded that detail.

24. It was put to the plaintiff that in a note taken on 23 June 2016, it had been noted

that the plaintiff had come for review and had twisted her ankle four days previously

and was unable to bear weight on it, or to walk. There was no mention in that note of

any hoover. It was put to her that in a further note dated 27 June 2016, the history

recorded therein noted that she had twisted her ankle eight days previously, but again

there was no reference to any hoover. The plaintiff stated that she could not explain the

omission of those details. She stated that she had definitely told the medical personnel

in A&E about the circumstances of the accident when she had first visited it.

25. The plaintiff accepted that she had sent a text to the defendant which stated that

she would not be returning to work, as she knew that she could not stand for any

prolonged period. She accepted that when she saw Dr. Grant on 23 September 2016, it

had been noted that she was “starting new job next week”. The plaintiff stated that that

job was with a company called Recall Security. She was going to work as a store

detective, which would not have required her to be standing or walking for the entire

day.

26. Engineering evidence was given on behalf of the plaintiff by Mr. Jack O'Reilly,

Chartered Engineer. He stated that the system of work that had been in operation in the

clinic at the time of the accident was unwieldly and unsatisfactory. The system adopted

required the person who was vacuum cleaning the lower flight of stairs to switch off 8

the hoover periodically while vacuum cleaning the lower flight of stairs and to run up

and down the stairs on a number of occasions to check whether the receptionist was on

a phone call. He stated that that was not a satisfactory system of work.

27. Mr. O'Reilly stated that if it was essential that the hoover could not be operated

while the receptionist was on the phone, that could have been accommodated in a

number of ways: the vacuum cleaning of the stairs could have been carried out outside

working hours; or there could have been a system put him in place whereby a small

light would be put on the ceiling of the basement area and would be connected to the

reception area, so that the receptionist could switch the light on in the event that she

had to make or take a phone call while someone was vacuum cleaning the lower flight

of stairs; alternatively, steps could have been taken to soundproof the reception area

itself; although in relation to this last suggestion, Mr. O'Reilly accepted that that was

probably excessively expensive.

28. In relation to the line of sight of the reception area, which someone would have

had while ascending the stairs, Mr. O'Reilly was of the view that the plaintiff would

probably have been obliged to ascend the stairs to the first step of the upper flight of

stairs, in order to have a line of sight of the receptionist, who would be sitting at her

desk, in order to see whether or not she was on the phone.

29. He stated that it would be necessary for the person to carry out this exercise

several times while cleaning the lower section of the stairs, which consisted of eight

steps. He estimated that in normal circumstances it would take a person approximately

10 minutes to hoover the lower flight of stairs

30. In relation to the evidence given by the plaintiff that she had been blinded by

the strong sunlight coming through the windows on the entrance door and for that

reason had not seen the flexible hose that had come to lie across the third last step on 9

the lower flight of stairs; Mr. O'Reilly stated that it had to be remembered that this

accident occurred at 15.00 hours on 20th June 2016, which was practically the longest

day of the year. He stated that the entrance doors faced due south. Given the time of

day, at that time of year it was quite possible that strong sunlight would have been

streaming through the windows in the entrance door.

31. He stated that there was a well-known phenomenon, known as “dark

adaptation” which occurred when a person moved from a strongly lit area to a dark area.

In these circumstances it could take a person's eyes several seconds to acclimatise to

the dark. He said an example of where this could happen would be where somebody

was in a brightly lit room; when they turned off the light, they would be plunged into

total darkness and it would take a number of moments for their eyes to adjust to the

darkness and to begin making out the shapes of objects in the room.

32. He stated that if it was a sunny day, it was quite possible that the plaintiff had

been blinded by the sunlight as she descended the upper flight of stairs and crossed the

landing and may have been descending the stairs to the basement area with impaired

vision. This could have explained, or contributed to, the fact that she had not seen that

the hoover had fallen away from the banister and that the hose was lying across one of

the steps near the bottom.

33. In cross examination, Mr. O'Reilly accepted that the plaintiff had left the hoover

at the foot of the stairs with the steel arm resting against the banister and accordingly,

she knew where it was. It was put to the witness that the phenomenon known as “dark

adaptation” would not have applied because, unlike in the example that he had given of

turning off the light in a room, the basement area was not in complete darkness, there

was a light in that area; Mr. O’Reilly stated that it was possible that the plaintiff would 10

still have had some impaired vision due to the strength of the sunlight streaming through

the entrance door windows.

34. It was put to Mr. O’Reilly that the receptionist would have been clearly visible

to anyone who had ascended onto the landing; the witness did not agree with that

assertion. He stated that if the receptionist was in a sitting position and if she was taking

a note in a notepad, she would have been bent over her desk and accordingly, it would

have been necessary for the person doing the cleaning to ascend further up the upper

flight of stairs to ascertain whether or not she was on the phone.

35. Mr. O'Reilly reiterated that the system of work that was in use was not

satisfactory. It had what might be regarded as a minor flaw. The person doing the

vacuum cleaning was required to ascend and descend the stairs on a number of

occasions when carrying out the cleaning operation. If the light system that he had

suggested had been in place, the person cleaning the stairs would not have been required

to carry out these periodic checks on the receptionist and the accident would not have

happened.

The Defendant's Evidence.

36. Evidence was given on behalf of the defendant by Ms. Corona Brown, who had

been employed by the defendant as a dental nurse/receptionist in his clinic for

approximately 28 years. She stated that the plaintiff had worked in the clinic for

approximately nine years prior to the accident. When patients were being treated by the 11

defendant, the plaintiff would assist him in the treatment room. Ms. Brown stated that

her main function was to act as receptionist, which involved dealing with patients on

the phone, checking them in on arrival, and processing payments from them at the

conclusion of the treatment session. She would also make follow-up appointments as

necessary.

37. Ms. Brown stated that it was the practice in the clinic that if there was a quiet

period due to the non-arrival of a patient, or if there happened to be a gap in the patient

schedule at any point during the day, she and the plaintiff would carry out general

cleaning duties in the clinic.

38. She stated that when the plaintiff would be vacuum cleaning the lower flight of

stairs, it would be necessary for her to switch off the hoover from time to time, to ascend

the stairs and to check that she was not taking a phone call. This was because when the

hoover was running, it was very difficult for her to hear what patients were saying at

the other end of the telephone line.

39. She stated that it would only be necessary for the plaintiff to stop the hoover

while she was cleaning the lower flight of stairs, because she would be visible once the

plaintiff got to the return landing, or had gone up a number of steps on the upper flight

of stairs.

40. Ms. Brown stated that when she and the plaintiff had been leaving the clinic at

approximately 18:00 hours on 20 June 2016, she noticed that the plaintiff was

limping. She made a comment about that, or asked the plaintiff why she was

limping. She stated that the plaintiff blamed her limp on the fact that she was wearing

new shoes. Ms. Brown denied that she had told the plaintiff not to mention the accident,

or the fall on the stairs, or the fact that she had tripped over the hoover. She denied that

the plaintiff had stated that such an accident was the cause of her limp. 12

41. The witness stated that the first they had learnt of the actual cause of the

plaintiff's injury was when the letter of claim had been received by the defendant from

the plaintiff's solicitor in April 2018.

42. In cross examination, the witness accepted that prior to 2015, there had been a

cleaner employed to clean the clinic. She had worked for approximately two hours,

once per week.

43. She accepted that in offices and other places of work throughout the country,

cleaning operations would normally be carried out either before or after the working

day. She accepted that whenever she did the cleaning, she would not do the hoovering

until sometime after 18:00 hours, but that was because she would be working as the

receptionist up to that time.

44. Ms. Brown accepted that something must have happened that day, as the

plaintiff was obviously limping when she was leaving the clinic. The witness denied

that she had told the plaintiff not to tell the defendant about her accident.

45. Evidence was given by the owner of the clinic, Dr. John Buckley. He stated that

he was an orthodontist. He had operated the clinic as a one-man practice since 2001. He

stated that Ms. Brown had worked with him since 1996. The plaintiff had worked for

him from 2007 until 2016.

46. Dr. Buckley stated that he had first heard of the accident when he received the

solicitor's letter in April 2018. That was the first occasion on which he was aware of the

alleged circumstances of the accident. Prior to that, he had only been aware that she had

suffered an injury to her right ankle, which had prevented her returning to work in the

clinic.

47. He stated that he had CCTV of the interior of the premises, but it was long

overwritten by the time that he had first learnt of the circumstances of the accident. 13

48. In cross examination, the defendant stated that he had first been told of the

plaintiff having suffered an injury, on the following Friday, when she was due to work

again. He was told that she had been to hospital with an injured right ankle.

49. Dr Buckley stated that the accident was alleged to have occurred at

approximately 15.00 hours. He stated that the plaintiff had worked with him treating

other patients for a further two hours until approximately 17.30 hours that day. He

stated that she had not complained of any injury during that period, nor had he seen any

evidence of a limp.

50. The defendant stated that he did not think that the plaintiff was afraid of

him. She had worked for him for approximately nine years. He stated that they had got

on very well during that period. She had spoken to him freely about various medical

conditions that she had.

51. The defendant stated that when he had first learnt that the plaintiff was out sick,

he had not enquired as to what the exact cause of her absence was, as he did not tend to

make such enquiry of female employees. He had learnt at some later time, that she had

been to hospital in relation to an injury to her ankle. He stated that she had submitted

six certificates and eventually had told him that she would not be capable of returning

to work in the clinic.

52. The defendant stated that the cleaning regime that had existed prior to 2015,

comprised an elderly lady coming into the clinic for approximately two hours on one

day per week. Thereafter, the cleaning of the clinic would be carried out by Ms. Brown

and the plaintiff whenever the clinic was quiet due to a patient not turning up or when

there was a gap in the schedule.

53. The defendant accepted that when vacuum cleaning the lower flight of stairs, it

was necessary for the plaintiff to stop the hoover from time to time and to check that 14

Ms. Brown was not taking a telephone call. He denied that that was an eccentric or

unsafe system of work.

54. The defendant accepted that both Ms. Brown and the plaintiff had stated that it

was the plaintiff's practice to check a number of times while she was cleaning the lower

flight of stairs whether or not Ms. Brown was engaged in a telephone call. However, he

denied that she would have had to have carried out anything like six such checks while

she was only cleaning up to the third step of the lower flight of stairs. He stated that he

would estimate that it would take somewhere between 5/10 minutes to hoover the entire

of the lower flight of stairs.

55. The witness stated that given that it was a one-man practice and that therefore

there was only one patient being treated at a time, the level of footfall on the premises

was not that great. This meant that the level of cleaning that had to be carried out on a

day-to-day basis was not extensive. He stated that the clinic would not become very

dirty, particularly during the summer period. He accepted that if the person doing the

vacuum cleaning saw that the receptionist was on the telephone, it would be necessary

to switch off the hoover, so as to enable the receptionist to hear the telephone

conversation.

56. Engineering evidence was given on behalf of the defendant by Mr. Vincent

O'Hare, who had carried out a joint inspection of the clinic with the plaintiff’s engineer.

He had also carried out a subsequent inspection on his own on 20th November 2025,

then he took a further set of photographs showing the upper flight of stairs and the view

from the reception area looking down towards that flight of stairs.

57. Mr. O'Hare stated that in his opinion the system of work that had been in

operation at the time of the accident was not an unsafe system. He stated that it was a

common occurrence for people who were carrying out vacuum cleaning operations, 15

either at a place of work or within a domestic setting, to have to stop the hoovering in

order to attend to something else, such as answering a knock on the door or taking a

telephone call.

58. The engineer stated that the plaintiff had turned off the hoover and had left it in

the position that she had indicated in her evidence at the foot of the lower flight of stairs.

Having ascended the stairs and having seen that Ms. Brown was on a phone call, she

had waited for the call to end and had then returned to continue with the hoovering

operation. He stated that the hoover was there to be seen. The plaintiff had left the

hoover at that location, so she knew that it was there. She ought to have seen it.

59. In relation to the line of sight that a person would have had of the reception area

as they ascended the stairs, he stated that the height of the counter at the reception area

was approximately 1.02 m high. If the receptionist was sitting at her desk, he was of the

opinion that she would have been visible once the plaintiff ascended onto the landing,

or perhaps she may have had to go onto the bottom step of the upper flight of stairs.

60. Mr. O'Hare stated that on the date of his second inspection he had carried out a

test whereby a Miele Multi Boost hoover had been operated on the lower flight of stairs

while a call had been put through to the reception area. He stated that it was possible to

hear the telephone ringing above the sound of the hoover when in operation mode.

61. In cross examination, the witness accepted that in photo C of his supplemental

booklet of photographs, Mr. Buckley could be seen standing on the landing. It was also

possible to see the top of Ms. Brown's head, who was standing beside him. He denied

that someone of Ms. Brown's stature would have had to have ascended considerably

further up the upper flight of stairs in order to see whether the receptionist was on the

phone. 16

62. Mr. O'Hare accepted that the hoover that he had used for the purpose of his test

on the date of his second inspection, was not of the same model or make of hoover as

had been used by the plaintiff on the day of the accident in 2016. He accepted that as

his test had been carried out some nine years later, it was likely that with improvements

in technology, the noise that would be made by a hoover when operating may have

diminished since the time of the accident.

Discussion and Conclusions.

63. In essence, this is a simple but very unfortunate accident. Part of the plaintiff's

duties was to carry out light cleaning operations at her place of work in the defendant's

orthodontic clinic from time to time during the day. This would occur when either a

patient did not attend for a scheduled appointment, or when there was a gap in the

scheduled appointments during the day.

64. Given that this was a relatively small work operation, being a one-man

orthodontic practice, supported by a dental nurse/receptionist and a dental assistant, and

given that the clinic itself appears to have been modest in size, comprising a treatment

room, a reception area, and a waiting room in the basement area, I find that it was

reasonable to expect the plaintiff and the receptionist, Ms. Brown, to carry out light

cleaning duties when the clinic was non-operational in terms of treating a patient for

any given period during the day.

65. On the day in question, the plaintiff was engaged in vacuum cleaning the lower

flight of stairs. She was using a very standard type of vacuum cleaner similar to the one

shown in photos 15 and 16 of the defendant's booklet of photographs.

66. It is the plaintiff's case that when she had commenced cleaning the lower flight

of stairs, starting from the bottom, which is made up of eight steps in total, and when 17

she had reached the third step from the bottom, she decided that it would be prudent to

switch off the hoover again and check that the receptionist, Ms. Brown, was not taking

a telephone call.

67. To that end, the plaintiff switched off the hoover. She stated that she left the

body of the hoover itself and the nozzle resting on the lower ground floor area, with the

steel arm leading from the nozzle resting against the banisters to the right. The plaintiff

stated that she then ascended the lower flight of stairs and went onto the upper flight of

stairs. Having done so, she saw that the receptionist was on the phone. Having awaited

the end of that call, the plaintiff then descended the upper flight of stairs and proceeded

to descend the lower flight of stairs.

68. Unfortunately, while the plaintiff had been waiting for the telephone call to end,

the steel arm leading from the nozzle had fallen over to the left away from the banisters

and had come to rest either on the floor, or against the left side of the stairs. This had

caused the flexible hose to lie across the stairs at approximately the level of the third

step.

69. The plaintiff states that due to the fact that sunlight had been streaming through

the entrance doors, she had been somewhat blinded while descending the upper flight

of stairs; and as her eyes were readjusting from the glare while she was descending the

second flight of stairs, she did not see the flexible hose portion lying across the top of

the step, she stood on it and stumbled forward causing an injury to her ankle.

70. That was a very unfortunate accident. But that is all it was. It was an accident.

71. Every day up and down the country, when people are carrying out vacuum

cleaning operations on a flight of stairs, either at home or in an office or other place of

work, the person doing the vacuum cleaning may have to stop for any number of

reasons. They may have to answer a knock on the door, or answer the telephone, or they 18

may have to go to the assistance of somebody such as a child or a sick relative in an

upstairs room. Thus, it is very common for people who are cleaning a flight of stairs, to

have to stop that operation for one reason or another.

72. That the rigid arm of the hoover when left propped against a banister, may fall

over thereby causing the flexible hose to lie across the top of the steps, is something

that can happen without negligence on anybody's part. One could argue that the person

who had been doing the vacuum cleaning should have taken more care about leaving

the arm of the hoover propped against the banister, but I think that to do so would be to

impose an unreasonable duty of care upon them. All that can be said is that from time

to time when the rigid arm of a hoover is left propped in an upright position, it will

sometimes topple over and come to rest on the ground. That is not anybody's fault, it

just happens from time to time.

73. The plaintiff accepted that she had been carrying out the vacuum cleaning

operation. She accepted that she had stopped the hoover to check whether the

receptionist was on a call. She accepted that she had left the hoover apparatus in the

place where it had been left at the bottom of the stairs and she accepted that she knew

that it was in that location, although she did not know that the rigid arm had fallen over

while she had been awaiting the end of the telephone call.

74. I find that the fact that the rigid arm of the hoover fell over while the plaintiff

was on the upper flight of stairs awaiting the end of the phone call, was an unfortunate

event and was the proximate cause of the hose lying across the top of the step, which in

turn led to her stumbling and causing the inversion injury to her right ankle. I cannot

find that this was caused by any negligence on the part of the defendant.

75. It was pleaded on behalf of the plaintiff that the system of work which required

the person cleaning the lower flight of stairs to stop the hoover from time to time and 19

to check whether the receptionist was taking a phone call, was an unsafe system of

work. I do not accept that submission. As already noted, people who are engaged in

hoovering a flight of stairs may have to stop that operation for any number of reasons,

either to ascend the stairs to do something on an upper level, or to descend the stairs

and take care of something on the ground floor or basement level. Stopping a hoover

while one is engaged in hoovering a flight of stairs is not an unsafe practice.

76. I accept that it was necessary for the plaintiff to stop the hoover from time to

time while she was hoovering the lower flight of stairs to check whether the receptionist

was making a phone call at any given time. As already noted, this is a relatively narrow

set of stairs and it is a relatively short flight of stairs, comprising only eight steps. I do

not accept the plaintiff's evidence that in the course of cleaning the bottom three steps,

she had had to stop the hoover on six occasions to check to see whether Ms. Brown was

taking a phone call. That evidence is not credible.

77. I find as a fact that given the width of the stairs and given the number of steps

on the lower flight of stairs, it would not have taken much more than five/ten minutes

to hoover the entire of the lower portion of the flight of stairs. I find that in carrying out

that operation from start to finish the plaintiff would only have had to have shut off the

hoover for the purpose of checking to see if Ms. Brown was on a phone call on two/three

occasions at most. I hold that having to do that did not render this an unsafe system of

work.

78. On behalf of the plaintiff it was asserted by Mr. O'Reilly, the plaintiff’s

consulting engineer, that if it were the case that the hoovering operation could not have

been carried on while the receptionist was making or receiving a telephone call, then in

order to have a safe system of work, the hoovering operation should either have been

carried out outside of working hours, or a warning light system should have been put 20

in place, whereby a light on the ceiling of the basement area could have been

illuminated by the receptionist to alert the person doing the vacuum cleaning that she

was on the phone. It is always possible to come up with steps that can be taken to

eradicate any possible accident. However, that is not the duty that is placed on an

employer, either at common law or under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act

2005, as amended. An employer is only required to take reasonable steps to prevent an

accident that is reasonably foreseeable.

79. I am satisfied that as this was a small three person operation, it was reasonable

for the employer to expect the plaintiff and her colleague, Ms. Brown, to carry out light

cleaning duties if there was no patient being treated at the clinic. I do not think that it

was necessary for the employer to direct that hoovering operations should only be

carried out either before or after working hours.

80. I do not think that it is reasonable to expect an employer to put in place a warning

light system solely for the purpose of alerting someone who would be carrying out a

cleaning operation on the lower flight of stairs, which operation would only last for

8/10 minutes at most.

81. In the course of his evidence, Mr. O’Reilly repeatedly referred to the plaintiff

having been required to “run up and down” the stairs a number of times. There was no

evidence before the court that the plaintiff was under any time pressure when carrying

out the hoovering operation. She did not assert that she had ever run up or down the

stairs at any stage. I find that the plaintiff was free to ascend and descend the stairs at

whatever speed she chose on the day of the accident.

82. I accept the evidence given by Mr. O'Hare that requiring the person doing the

cleaning to shut off the hoover on two or possibly three occasions while vacuum

cleaning the lower flight of stairs, is not an unreasonable or dangerous system of work. 21

83. In relation to the assertion that the plaintiff may have been afflicted by the

phenomenon known as “dark adaptation” due to the fact that she may have been

somewhat blinded by sunlight streaming through the windows on the entrance doors as

she descended the upper flight of stairs, I do not accept that it is likely on the balance

of probabilities that her eyesight would have been affected to such a degree that she

could not have seen the hoover as she descended the lower flight of steps. The example

given by Mr. O'Reilly in his evidence concerned a situation where someone would turn

off a light and plunge a room into total darkness. Even if one accepts that the sunlight

streaming through the entrance door at 15.00 hours on 20th June 2016 was sufficient to

blind the plaintiff somewhat, it has to be remembered that the basement area was not

plunged into darkness, there was a light in the basement area to enable patients to get

to and from the waiting room. Even if the plaintiff was somewhat blinded by the

incoming sunlight, that did not constitute negligence on the part of the defendant in

relation to the system of work that was in operation at that time. It just required the

plaintiff to take more care while descending the lower flight of stairs.

84. Having regard to these findings I hold that there was no negligence on the part

of the defendant as either the employer of the plaintiff, or as occupier of the premises,

in relation to the circumstances of the accident as given in evidence by the plaintiff.

85. It is not necessary for the court to resolve the contested issues of fact, being

whether the accident actually occurred in the manner alleged by the plaintiff, or whether

Ms. Brown made the statement attributed to her by the plaintiff as they were leaving

the premises on the evening of the accident; as the court has held that even on the

account of the accident as given by the plaintiff, she has not established negligence on

the part of the defendant. Accordingly, I dismiss the plaintiff's action against the

defendant. 22

86. As this judgment has been given electronically, the parties shall have two weeks

within which to furnish brief written submissions on the terms of the final order and on

costs.

87. The matter will be listed for mention at 10.30 hours on 20 March 2026 for the

purpose of making final orders.