A young radiographer who probably will not work again because of injuries caused after she received a static electrical shock from a laser machine in Beaumont Hospital was awarded more than £660,000 in damages at the High Court yesterday.
Mr Justice Johnson said the shock received in 1993 by Ms Patricia Gilna (31) had produced "catastrophic consequences". He had heard evidence she suffered from chronic pain syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder and a radically changed and restricted lifestyle and held the injury was of a neuro-genetic nature caused by the shock.
"Overall, the accident has caused Patricia immeasurable suffering and has tragically interfered with her young life, emotionally, physically and mentally," said the judge.
He awarded total damages of £664,203, including £400,000 for future loss of earnings. He granted full indemnity to the hospital, meaning that 3M Ireland Ltd, manufacturer and supplier of the laser, will have to pay the full award plus costs.
He granted a stay in the event of an appeal and returned the matter to June 2nd.
Represented by Mr Joseph Finnegan SC, with Mr Anthony Kidney SC, Ms Gilna, of Griffith Avenue, Drumcondra, Dublin, had sued an agreed nominee of Beaumont Hospital and 3M Ireland Ltd, of Adelphi Centre, Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin.
The laser processor was supplied to the hospital on June 14th, 1993. On June 21st, 1993, Ms Gilna claimed she received a shock on picking up one of the films from the processor. The shock entered her right arm, crossed her chest and went down her left arm.
She said it threw her backwards across the room, she hallucinated, stumbled and was severely shaken. She was off work for two days and gave up work in 1996 because of continuing pain. She claimed the shock was due to the negligence of 3M in failing to earth the machine properly or provide anti-static brushes in a proper fashion.
In his reserved judgement yesterday, Mr Justice Johnson said problems arose almost immediately from June 14th, 1993, the start of the machine's operation in Beaumont, as films coming from it were sticking.
This was understood to be a result of static electricity and 3M staff came to deal with the problem. A June 16th, 1993, service report said a worker was unable to fit a static brush although he indicated to court he had in some way fitted the brush and had returned on June 18th and fitted another.
The judge said this was not properly fitted as the kit which the operative had was incomplete. When the machine was inspected on July 5th, 1993, it was clear the kit for the brush had been incomplete but this information was not communicated to the hospital.
The judge noted 3M had been informed by the hospital that two incidents of electro-static shock had occurred before June 21st, 1993, but "really relevant" service reports dealing with the situation between June 16th and June 21st were - "as so frequently happens in these cases" - not available.
When Ms Gilna received the shock on June 21st, 1993, she reported it to her superiors and they immediately had the machine shut down. An inspection the next day found the machine in perfect working order from a mains electric point of view.
An inspection of July 5th concluded the shock could only have been caused by static. With regard to static brushes and the anti-static kit fitted, only a brush had been fitted and there were improper brackets and wire assembly. On July 13th, the full anti-static kit was fitted and there were no problems afterwards.
The judge found the cause of the accident was a static electrical charge. While it may have been a unique or rogue machine, it was clear it did not have an anti-static brush fitted when it was provided to Beaumont on June 14th, 1993.
Secondly, the machine gave out electro-static shocks at that time. It was then incorrectly fitted or partially fitted with an electrostatic brush and continued to give out electro-static shocks.
When it was finally fitted with a proper electro-static brush or antistatic brush and full kit, it ceased to give out shocks.
He held that 3M was negligent in providing the machine in such a condition that it gave off electrostatic shocks when, if properly equipped, it would not have done so.
He also held the hospital was negligent in failing to provide Ms Gilna with safe equipment during her employment.
It was foreseeable that Ms Gilna would receive a shock and the defendants were aware the machine was already giving off shocks.
The judge said it was unusual this type of shock should cause the injury which Ms Gilna suffered but he was satisfied the damage was a result of the shock. Ms Gilna suffered an extreme trauma and he accepted on balance that she would not work again.
