Tripping Case Dismissed

Magherafelt Courthouse
16th June 2006
Before Judge Gemma Loughran
Ms X v R J Maxwell & Son Limited And Department for Regional Development.

This claim arose out of an accident which occurred on Queen Street, Magherafelt on the 4th May 2002. The Plaintiff was walking along Queen Street when she alleges that she tripped on a road sign which was present on the roadway warning traffic that the road ahead was closed. The issue as between the Plaintiff and defence version of the Plaintiff’s accident was regarding the condition of the road sign in question. The Plaintiff alleged that the leg of the road sign was bent so as to cause it to protrude. The Plaintiff alleged that this caused a tripping hazard which caused her accident as she attempted to cross Queen Street. When the Plaintiff fell she fell onto the roadway suffering injury. However discovery was obtained of the Accident & Emergency medical notes and records where the Plaintiff attended hospital. These records recorded that the Plaintiff said she had tripped over a kerb.

Under cross-examination the Plaintiff confirmed that she was aware of the presence of the road works for some weeks before her accident. Our client s take daily photographs of their works as they progress. Therefore we were able to show the PlaintiffA photograph of the road works and in particular of the road sign in question taken on the day of her accident. It was put to her that there was no visible leg protruding from the road sign in question. It was also put to her that when she attended a locus inspection with Mr King of the DRD that she did not specifically mention to him at this investigation into her accident that the leg of the sign was defective.

In her judgement Judge Loughran said there was conflicting evidence in a number of points in the case and therefore she did not find it to be an easy case to decide. However on balance she was not satisfied that the Plaintiff had met the burden of proof required and accordingly she dismissed the Plaintiff’s case on its merits. As the Plaintiff was not legally aided costs were ordered against the Plaintiff