[ad_1]
A couple who claimed to have been exposed to toxic chemicals after spray foam insulation was installed in their home received a 2 million euro award from a High Court judge.
Judge Kevin Cross said he had concluded, without question, that Patrick and Anita Duffy suffered “serious, life-altering injuries as a result of exposure to chemicals.”
The probable cause was foam that had been injected into the ceiling, he discovered.
It found that the injuries were caused beyond a reasonable doubt by exposure to the product sprayed by the insulation installers.
On the balance of probabilities, he discovered that, due to the nature and extent of the Duffys’ injuries, it was due to exposure to isocyanate.
The insulating foam product itself is “essentially safe” if applied correctly with the proper warranties, he said.
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. .
The couple had claimed that they were exposed to toxic chemicals and fumes and that they and their young daughter had to abandon the 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.”
They paid € 4,000 to install insulation in their home four years ago.
The couple, from Meenderryowern, Annagry, Co Donegal, had sued Brendan McGee trading as McGee Insulation Services, Largenreach, Downings, Letterkenny, Co Donegal, who was responsible for the installation and application of spray foam insulation in the home of the family on February 18. 2016.
They had also sued GMS Insulations Ltd, Legga, Moyne, Co Longford, which imports and supplies aerosol foam insulation material. Mr Justice Cross previously granted a request to dismiss the case against GMS Insulations Ltd on the basis that there was no evidence against him.
In his sentencing on Friday, Judge Cross found that the couple had never assessed that their absence from the home was necessary as 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 said that McGee’s recollection of the entire event “is less than accurate,” but the judge fully accepted that Mr. McGee believes that at this stage he told the Duffys that they should not be on the property during the fumigation and for the next two hours. The judge also accepted that this is Mr. McGee’s usual practice.
Said McGee was the local supplier for Icynene. It found that Mr. McGee 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. This general belief appears to have resulted in “an extremely lax approach to the necessary safeguards,” he said.
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.
Ms. Duffy and her daughter were allowed to stay on the property while workers sprayed in violation of all safety requirements and were allowed to sleep that night in a bedroom without natural ventilation, he said.
He did not find that the violations were in any way “irrelevant to the facts” or that they could be excused by Mr. 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 were totally truthful witnesses who did not exaggerate their complaints, he said.
[ad_2]