About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] IEHC 99
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice Anthony Barr

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice Anthony Barr observed: “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.”

Background

The plaintiff worked as a dental assistant at the defendant orthodontics clinic, a one-man practice run by Dr John Buckley, since 2007.

On 20 June 2016, the plaintiff was descending a flight of stairs in the clinic while she was cleaning. The plaintiff claimed that arm of the vacuum cleaner, which she had left turned off in a standing position at the bottom of the stairs to check whether the receptionist was on the phone, had fallen over unbeknownst to her.

The plaintiff alleged that having confirmed that the receptionist was not on the phone, and blinded by sunlight to the extent that she did not notice the arm of the vacuum cleaner, she descended the stairs to resume her cleaning duties when she stepped onto its hose and stumbled, causing her to sustain injuries to her ankle.

The plaintiff continued to work until approximately 6pm. The plaintiff stated that when she was leaving work with the company receptionist, she was advised not to inform Dr Buckley about the accident, as it would make him angry.

The plaintiff sued the defendant as her employer for damages in negligence and financial losses suffered by her as a result of the accident.

The receptionist denied that she had told the plaintiff not to tell Dr Buckley about the accident.

Dr Buckley stated that the first he had heard of the accident was when he received a solicitor’s letter in April 2018 and that the CCTV of the interior of the premises had long since been overwritten by the time he first learned of the circumstances of the accident.

The High Court

Having heard the evidence, Mr Justice Barr considered that due to the practice being a relatively small work operation, it was reasonable to expect that the plaintiff and the receptionist would carry out light cleaning duties when the clinic was non-operational at any given period during the day.

The judge opined that the accident was “a very unfortunate accident. But that is all it was. It was an accident.”

The judge observed that every day people who are carrying out vacuum cleaning operations on a flight of stairs, may have to stop for any number of reasons and that the rigid arm of a vacuum when left propped up, may fall over thereby causing the flexible hose to lie across the top of the steps.

Emphasising that this was something which could happen without negligence on anybody’s part, Mr Justice Barr noted: “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.”

The court did not accept that the system of work which required the person cleaning the lower flight of stairs to stop the vacuum cleaner from time to time and to check whether the receptionist was taking a phone call, was an unsafe system of work.

The court did not find credible the claim that the plaintiff had to stop the vacuum cleaner on six occasions whilst cleaning a flight of stairs comprising eight steps.

Having regard to the evidence of the plaintiff’s consulting engineer, who suggested inter alia that a warning light could have been installed alerting the person cleaning to the fact that the receptionist was on the phone, Mr Justice Barr considered that it was always possible to come up with steps that can be taken to eradicate any possible accident but that this was not the duty placed on an employer, either at common law or under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, as amended.

As to the assertion that the plaintiff may have experienced the phenomenon of “dark adaptation” due to the fact that she may have been blinded by sunlight streaming through the windows on the entrance doors as she descended the flight of stairs, the court did not accept that the plaintiff’s eyesight would have been affected to such a degree that she could not have seen the vacuum cleaner as she descended the lower flight of steps.

In this regard, Mr Justice Barr concluded: “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.”

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court having found no negligence on part of the defendant either as employer of the plaintiff or as occupier of the premises, dismissed the plaintiff’s action.

Sharon Walsh v Juniper Orthodontics Limited [2026] IEHC 99