The plaintiff worked as a dental assistant for the defendant from 2007 until the date of her accident on 20 June 2016.
In the afternoon of the day of the accident, she was carrying out hoovering on a flight of stairs in the defendant’s clinic when she stepped on the hose of the vacuum cleaner, lost her balance, stumbled, fell, and caused an injury to her right ankle.
The clinic was located in a building where patients enter through doors that are accessed by using external steps up to the entrance doors, which lead onto a return landing between a short flight of stairs leading up to the reception and treatment room, or leading down the stairs to the waiting room area in the basement
The plaintiff produced to the court, photographs of the area where the accident happened.
It was part of the plaintiff’s duties to carry our light domestic chores during quiet periods of the clinic.
On the day of the accident, the plaintiff started hoovering at the bottom of the staircase, but she had to stop occasionally to check if the phone was ringing. Prior to her accident, she had stopped approximately six times to ascend the stairs to check the phone.
On the last of these occasions, on descending stairs to return to the hoover, the arm of the hoover had moved which she did not notice causing her to trip and fall.
The plaintiff continued to work but on leaving her colleague noticed her limping and the plaintiff explained what had happened. The plaintiff alleged that her work colleague told her not to complain to their employer as it would only make him annoyed. In evidence her work colleague hotly disputed this conversation.
In cross examination, the plaintiff acknowledged that she knew exactly she had left the hoover on the staircase but stated that she was not aware that that the steel arm leading from the nozzle of the hoover, which had been resting against the banister, had fallen over while she had been upstairs checking the phone. She also stated that she had been blinded by strong sunlight coming in from the entrance doors which reached the staircase area.
The plaintiff acknowledged that there was CCTV coverage of the area where the accident occurred and was aware that after one month the tape would be cleared. She denied that her solicitor’s claim letter was delayed to pass the one-month period.
Questions were put to the plaintiff that several medical attendances made no mention of her stumbling and falling on a hose of a hoover at her place of work. The plaintiff claimed she had so informed the doctors at A&E.
It was put to the plaintiff that in a note taken on 23 June 2016, it had been noted that the plaintiff had come for review and had twisted her ankle four days previously and was unable to bear weight on it, or to walk. There was no mention in that note of any hoover. It was put to her that in a further note dated 27 June 2016, the history recorded noted that she had twisted her ankle eight days previously, but again there was no reference to any hoover. The plaintiff stated that she could not explain the omission of those details. She stated that she had definitely told the medical personnel in A&E about the circumstances of the accident when she had first visited it.
The plaintiff accepted that she had sent a text to the defendant which stated that she would not be returning to work, as she knew that she could not stand for any prolonged period. She accepted that when she saw Dr. Grant on 23 September 2016, it had been noted that she was “starting new job next week”. The plaintiff stated that that job would not have required her to be standing or walking for the entire day.
The plaintiff called supporting evidence by an engineer which pointed out the unsuitability of the area for safe cleaning to be carried out.
The defence called the work colleague of the plaintiff who mentioned the practise of cleaning the area during quiet spells. On being asked about what the plaintiff said when they were leaving work that day. The witness asked the plaintiff why the plaintiff was limping. She told the court that the plaintiff said it was from new shoes. She denied saying to the plaintiff not to mention the accident to the employer.
The defendant told the court that the first time he was informed by the plaintiff of her injury allegedly caused by the hoover, was in a letter from the plaintiff’s solicitor in April 2018. He said the CCTV was long gone from their system. He accepted that when vacuum cleaning the lower flight of stairs, it was necessary for the plaintiff to stop the hoover from time to time and to check the phone.
He denied that it was an unsafe place to work.
Engineering evidence was given on behalf of the defendant who had carried out a joint inspection of the clinic with the plaintiff’s engineer. He had also carried out a subsequent inspection on his own on 20th November 2025, then he took a further set of photographs showing the upper flight of stairs and the view from the reception area looking down towards that flight of stairs.
The engineer stated that in his opinion the system of work that had been in operation at the time of the accident was not an unsafe system.
Decision
On reviewing the evidence, the judge said that this was a very unfortunate accident – but that all it was, an accident. The judge did not accept that the workplace was unsafe. He said that 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 foreseeable.
Consequently, the judge found that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant as either the employer of the plaintiff, or as occupier of the premises, in relation to the circumstances of the accident as given in evidence by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff case was dismissed.
Sharon Walsh v Juniper Orthodontics Ltd High Court [2026] IEHC 99]

