Court of Appeal overturns €83,000 award to ESB worker for psychological injury/nervous shock in work

The Court of Appeal has overturned an award of €83,000 for an ESB employee who had suffered a psychological injury in the course of his work.
The ESB technician had come across a medium voltage cable whilst repairing a streetlight. He claimed that he later realised that he had been close to a serious physical injury and this realisation caused him a ‘nervous shock’ type injury.
The ESB appealed the decision of the High Court to award him €83,000 on the grounds that there was no ‘calamitous event’ which caused his injury; instead, it was a later appreciation of how close he had come to an injury that caused his psychiatric injury.
The Court of Appeal recognised that the worker had suffered an injury. But that the ESB could not be held liable for it.
The worker’s argument of liability on the part of the ESB was that he was directed to use a machine which was unsafe, unsuitable, and for which he had no training. He claimed that he had suffered a recognised psychiatric injury which still caused him problems.
The ESB said they were not liable for any nervous shock injury.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the ESB and held that it was long established in this area of Irish law that to recover for a psychiatric injury in Irish law there must be a ‘sudden’ event which is calamitous, shocking, distressing.
#personalinjury #irishlaw #employmentlaw
SUBSCRIBE? Just hit the subscribe button and the bell icon to never miss a video.
Check out Terry Gorry’s Investment Course: businessandlegal.ie/terry-gor...
I have published a number of free reports including “16 Common Mistakes Most Irish Employers Make” and “Buying or Selling a Residential Property in Ireland-The Facts You Should Know”.
You can pick up a FREE REPORT here: businessandlegal.ie/free-reports
MY BOOKS ON AMAZON
Employment Law In Ireland: The Essentials for Employers, Employees and HR Managers amzn.to/2oDhR36
27 Irish Employment Law Cases: Priceless Lessons for Employers and Employees from Decided Cases of the EAT, Equality Tribunal, and High Court amzn.to/2oG4oHK
How to Carry Out a Workplace Disciplinary Procedure: Avoid Costly Claims for Unfair Dismissal and Other Employment Related Claims amzn.to/2H1uR9i
The Art of Marketing Your Services Business Online: How to Get New Clients With a Proven, Inexpensive 5 Part Digital Marketing Strategy amzn.to/2Fa5BB7
Buying a House in Ireland: A Step by Step Guide by a Builder/Solicitor amzn.to/2F9Z2ij
MY WEBSITES
For more information about me: businessandlegal.ie
For more information about employment law in Ireland: EmploymentRightsIreland.com
For information about property, personal injury law, small business, wills, and all other areas of law in Ireland, visit Terry Gorry & Co. Solicitors website: BusinessAndLegal.ie
For information about small business in Ireland, visit SmallBusinessLawIreland.com
Terry Gorry’s Amazon author page: amazon.com/author/terrygorry
The best way to contact me is through email-check out the contact page on any of the sites above.
MY SOCIAL MEDIA-Connect with me
TH-cam / terrygorry
Twitter / tgorrysolicitor
Instagram / tgorrysolicitor
Facebook / terrygorrysolicitor
LinkedIn / terrygorry MY PODCAST
The Irish Law and Small Business Podcast
podcasters.spotify.com/pod/sh...

[@agelatinouscube930]

That must have felt terrible for the ESB worker to have gone against your employer, won, and then have your injury compensation overturned at appeal.
A shame that often this litigation encourages safer work practices after a workplace injury or death, but a near miss or avoidance of hazards would not encourage this change.
Thanks for the video Terry, I'm not a practitioner of law but I always find your takes interesting!

[@Paul5520]

Thanks Terry. Appeal Seems fair enough but, surely there is something to be said for a potential injury claim if it is reasonably foreseeable or a natural consequence of a certain course of action etc. I must read the case🇮🇪

[@dylanlyons6]

I’m surprised the HC even indulged him in the first place. Surely going home and later “realising” that harm may have befallen you does not satisfy the proximity test (as I remember it anyway).
It would arguably be a different case if he had this realisation while at the scene, but to say he suffered nervous shock thinking about it later...come on🤣
Talk about a bad precedent.
Thanks for that Terry, it’s nice to get updates on the law (having not covered tort in years)👍🏼

[@robertbrowne4049]

Nobody would be able to employ anybody if this nonsense was allowed.

[@michaelkinahan1829]

Some chancer... and as for the jokers on the high court bench 🤣🤣
Good to see that at least the appeals court had some sense.

[@mikeyk212]

Seems a sensible decision by the appeal court. Otherwise thed be claims for all sorts of stuff. Like claiming damages for a dangerous floor or footpath not because you incurred injury on the footpath but the risk that you could have incurred injury. Strange decision by the High Court to make an award in the first place. The whole thing very well explained by Terry here.

[@MissLuella]

Are the HC now bound by that precedent going forward? Would love to see how they came to that decision in the first instance it seems a dangerous example to set

[@terrygorry]

Yes, the Court of Appeal decided teh High Court had gone too far in extending the boundaries of a "nervous shock" type injury.

[@des1458]

I don't get why people make claims when they are not even hurt, why bother go through all that legal stuff just to get a payday. this is why car insurance is soo high for young drivers people claiming soft tissue injuries in the courts.

[@yasman34]

What's the case cited?

[@terrygorry]

Here you go: businessandlegal.ie/nervous-shock-award-of-e83000-for-workers-later-realisation-of-a-close-shave-overturned-by-court-of-appeal
Warren Harford v ESB [2021] IECA 12

[@yasman34]

@@terrygorryThank you.