A person sitting down near a cliff "must be prepared for oddities in the cliff's structure", the Supreme Court remarked yesterday when it overturned a High Court award of €84,000 damages to a woman arising from injuries received when she fell down a cliff in Donegal while admiring the sunset.
Farmers and hill walkers have welcomed the Supreme Court decision, saying it brings clarity to the interpretation of the law on the liability of land occupiers.
The High Court action was taken by Ms Geraldine Weir-Rodgers, Annagry, Co Donegal, against S.F. Trust Ltd, a company formed by the Franciscan order and the owner of the unused land in question, near Rossnowlagh beach.
Ms Weir-Rodgers had claimed that after a "social evening" in Donegal town on April 11th, 1997, a group of people including herself went for a walk towards the beach at Coolmore, Rossnowlagh, to watch the sunset at about 8 p.m.
As they travelled towards the beach, there was an isolated section of fencing on their left, a piece of which had fallen down.
She was sitting with some friends close to the edge of a cliff. When she stood up, she slipped, lost her footing and fell down the edge of the cliff, which turned out to be much more sheer than she would have expected.
Because of loose materials, she was unable to stop herself and ended up in the water, from which she was rescued by her friend. She suffered fractures to her left shoulder, her left elbow, left hip and pelvis, and other injuries.
The High Court had assessed damages at €113,000, but the trial judge found Ms Weir-Rodgers to be 25 per cent guilty of contributory negligence and made an award of €84,666. The company appealed to the Supreme Court.
Mr Justice Geoghegan said that a person sitting down near a cliff must be prepared for oddities in the cliff's structure or in the structure of the ground adjacent to the cliff and he or she assumes the inherent associated risks.
There could be something exceptionally unusual and dangerous in the state of a piece of ground which would impose a duty on the occupier and, if they did not put up a warning notice, they would be treated as having shown reckless disregard, the judge added.
However, this was not such a case. While obviously sympathetic to the woman regarding her serious injuries, he was quite satisfied there was no liability on the part of the company in this case.
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Murray, and Ms Justice Denham agreed with Mr Justice Geoghegan. The court also awarded costs to the company.
Farmers were very relieved, said Mr Tom Dunne, IFA's environment committee chairman. He said the decision brought much- needed clarification to the interpretation of the law regarding the liability of land occupiers.
"It would appear to emphasise the personal responsibility of individuals to look out for their own safety and welfare while in the countryside," Mr Dunne said.
Ms Helen Lawless, the Mountaineering Council's development officer, said the judgment should be a huge relief to farmers and landowners who had expressed concern about their potential liability for injuries sustained by recreational users. These concerns had been stifling the tourism industry and restricting people from healthy outdoor recreation.
She said land occupiers were entitled to assume that hill-walkers would have a knowledge of the dangers and would take appropriate safety measures.