A CATTLE drover who suffered a severe direct kick to the groin from a Limousin bullock at a cattle mart, resulting in significant trauma and injuries, is entitled to damages against his employer, Cavan Co-op Mart, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The three-judge court found Binnacle Ltd, trading as Cavan Co-op Mart, was two-thirds liable for the injuries suffered by Patrick Lynch (53), a farmer and drover, Crubany, Co Cavan, while Mr Lynch himself was one-third liable. The case has been sent back to the High Court for assessment of damages.
In separate concurring judgments, Ms Justice Susan Denham and Mr Justice Nial Fennelly found the employer was vicariously liable for the injuries suffered by Mr Lynch on October 24th, 2003, after he was left doing the work of three drovers as two other drovers had absented themselves for half an hour to do their own business at the mart.
However, Mr Lynch also had 33 per cent responsibility as he had not asked the two drovers, or even one of them, to remain at work, did not ask anyone to help him and was a skilled and experienced drover from the age of 15 who knew the nature of cattle and a Limousin bullock, it ruled.
In her judgment, Ms Justice Denham said Mr Lynch was employed by Binnacle when he suffered a direct kick to the scrotum by a Limousin bullock.
He was admitted to Cavan Hospital and suffered significant trauma to the scrotum and right testis, which gave rise to a haemorrhage which caused damage to his right testis.
The High Court had dismissed Mr Lynch’s case after finding he was the “author of his own misfortune” and he appealed to the Supreme Court which had to consider only the issue of liability for the injuries.
Mr Lynch said a system operated at the mart whereby he herded cattle from a pen in the mart yard to a dividing pen prior to their entering the sales ring.
A second drover was positioned at the dividing pens to herd the cattle into two individual pens and a third drover was positioned near the weighbridge to release cattle individually into that area to be weighed before entering the sales ring.
Mr Lynch claimed he had performed the two absent drovers’ tasks, as well as his own, and this required him to enter the individual pens while occupied by an animal.
Ms Justice Denham said the fact was that in the absence of the oth- er two drovers, Mr Lynch entered a pen, went behind the Limousin bullock and got kicked as he was moving forward to open a gate which would have been opened by one of the missing drovers.
The evidence was the mart had established a safe system of work with three drovers but that became unsafe when there was only one drover present. When Mr Lynch was injured, the system was unsafe, she said.
No provision was made for a situation where one or two drovers left their work, she said. It clearly was known drovers absented themselves from work on occasions. There was no evidence of any system of supervision by the employer or any procedure to be followed when that happened and the improper absence of the two drovers in this case exposed Mr Lynch to danger.
