[ad_1]
Supermac’s is being sued for damages by a 55-year-old caregiver who claims he injured his back and lower back after a chair he was sitting in broke on one of its outlets.
Pamela Dudgeon sued Supermac’s Ireland Limited in Circuit Court for personal injury that she claims to have suffered on January 6, 2017 after a chair she was sitting on at the defendant’s facility in Eyre Square, Galway broke, causing it to That made her fall to the ground
In a pre-trial ruling in Superior Court, Judge Anthony Barr ruled that she had no right to CCTV footage of the incident prior to hearing her claim.
She had searched for the images, which she says are important to her claim. Supermac objected to the app’s claims that it wanted to use the images to repair its hand, in case the images did not support its version of events.
Ms. Dudgeon, of Woodlands Grove, Coosan Road, Athlone, Co Westmeath, claims that she fell into a twisting mechanism and was extremely embarrassed by the incident.
He claims that he sustained injuries to his lower back, back, and abdominal muscles and required pain medication.
He also claims that due to ongoing pain, he has found it difficult to drive for any length of time and has had difficulty sleeping. His ability to work and enjoy life has also been negatively affected, he further states.
She claims the defendant was negligent, resulting in her sustaining personal injuries for which she seeks damages.
In its defense, Supermac’s denies the claim or that it was negligent.
While he accepts that the chair he sat in was broken and defective, he denies that he fell to the ground and sustained the injuries as alleged.
In a pre-trial motion against Ms. Dudgeon’s attorneys from Supermac, they sought access to CCTV footage of the accident.
The request, which was opposed by Supermac, was rejected by Circuit Court Judge Raymond Groake.
Ms. Dudgeon appealed that decision to the Superior Court.
In Superior Court, Ms. Dudgeon’s John Hogan BL argued that the CCTV footage was “absolutely essential” to the claim because, without explanation, the chair from which she fell was not preserved.
He said his client, who had never made a claim before, was prejudiced because his experts could not examine the “defective” chair.
In response, James O’Donnell Bl of Supermac’s said that while his client accepted that the chair broke, it is disputed that it fell to the ground as alleged.
The unavailability of the broken chair was irrelevant to the claim against Supermac, the attorney said, adding that it was a bit of a “red herring.”
The reason Ms. Dudgeon’s attorneys wanted CCTV was so that she could “fix her hand” and potentially make a new claim against her client.
This is something she does not have the right to use the discovery process for, the attorney said.
In his ruling, Judge Barr said he was satisfied that the defendant did not have to provide the plaintiff with the CCTV footage of what happened to Ms. Dudgeon at the relevant date and time in between.
Upholding the lower court ruling, the judge said he was satisfied that she did not require the CCTV footage to advance her claim.
The judge said this was because Supermac’s had significantly admitted that the chair broke and was defective.
Although the defendant had made this admission, the judge accepted that the causality of the accident and the amount remain highly controversial between the parties.
[ad_2]