[ad_1]
A couple who sued claiming they were exposed to toxic chemicals after spray foam insulation was installed in their home received just over 2 million euros from a Superior Court judge.
Judge Kevin Cross said that he had concluded beyond any doubt that Patrick and Anita Duffy suffered “serious and life-changing injuries as a result of exposure to chemicals.” The probable cause, the judge further discovered, was the foam that had been injected into the ceiling.
The Duffys’ injuries, Mr. Justice Cross discovered, were caused beyond a reasonable doubt by exposure to the product sprayed by the insulation installers.
On the balance of probabilities, the judge determined that due to the nature and extent of the Duffys’ injuries, it was due to exposure to isocyanate.
The judge found that the foam insulation product itself is “essentially safe” if applied correctly with due guarantees.
But it found that the installer was negligent by failing to inform the Duffys that they should be out of the house during the fumigation and for at least two hours afterward, and by failing to communicate the potential risks and hazards involved in the product if safeguards were not followed. .
Patrick Duffy and his wife Anita had filed a lawsuit claiming they were exposed to toxic chemicals and fumes and that they and their young daughter had to abandon their dream home they had built near the sea in Donegal because they did not feel safe there.
The family now lives in a mobile home. Duffy told the court that all three members of the family became incredibly sensitive to certain products and “now live in a bubble.”
The Duffys paid € 4,000 to install insulation in their house four years ago.
Patrick and Anita Duffy, 45, of Meenderryowern, Annagry, Co. Donegal, had sued Brendan McGee marketing as McGee Insulation Services, Largenreach, Downings, Letterkenny, Co. Donegal, who was responsible for the installation and application of insulation from Aerosol foam at the family home on February 18, 2016.
They had also sued GMS Insulations Ltd, Legga, Moyne, Co. Longford, which imports and supplies aerosol foam insulation material.
Judge Cross had previously granted a request to dismiss the case against GMS Insulations Ltd on the basis that there was no evidence against GMS.
At his trial today, Mr. Judge Cross found that Mr. and Mrs. Duffy were never assessed that their absence from the home was necessary for a matter of personal safety for them and their daughter.
“I have no doubt that if they had been so screened that Ms. Duffy would have left the house with her daughter before the spraying started and neither of the Duffys would have returned until they were assured it was safe to do so,” he said. Judge.
Judge Cross commented that McGee’s recollection of the entire event “is less than accurate,” but the judge fully accepted that Mr. McGee believes at this stage that he told the Duffys that they should not be on the property during the fumigation and during two hours. after.
The judge also accepted that this is Mr. McGee’s usual practice. Mr. McGee said he was the local supplier for Icynene.
McGee, according to the judge, was “clearly negligent in several matters.” She accepted that Mr. McGee was a highly experienced installer who clearly believed in his product and its overall safety.
However, it found that this general belief appears to have resulted in “an extremely lax approach to the necessary safeguards.” Judge Cross found that McGee was negligent because he failed to advise the Duffys that they should be out of the house during the fumigation and for at least two hours afterward.
He also did not communicate with the Duffys about the potential risks and hazards involved in the product if the safeguards were not followed.
The judge said that “most importantly” it found that Mr. McGee was negligent regarding the extraction of air and ventilation of the property.
Mrs. Duffy and her daughter, the judge said, were allowed to remain on the property while workers fumigated in violation of all safety requirements and the two were allowed to sleep that night in a bedroom without natural ventilation.
The judge said he did not find the violations to be in any way “irrelevant to the facts” or that they could be excused by McGee’s claim that he was not good at paperwork. The judge said McGee has a clear obligation to adequately advise the Duffys on the risks in relation to the product and also on what they must do to ensure their own safety.
The Duffys, he said, were fully truthful witnesses who did not exaggerate their complaints.
[ad_2]