THE HIGH COURT
		1995 No. 3875p
BETWEEN
PATRICIA GILNA
		PLAINTIFF
AND
SHEILA MAGUIRE AND 3M IRELAND LIMITED
		DEFENDANTS

Judgment of Mr. Justice Johnson delivered on the  19th day of May, 1999.

	This case arises out of an incident which occurred on 21st June, 1993.  The Plaintiff who was then a 25 year old Radiographer was employed in Beaumont Hospital, which hospital is represented by the First named Defendant.
	The Second named Defendant, a limited liability company with its principle offices at 3M House, Adelphi Centre, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin, was the manufacturer and supplier of a laser image processor.  The First named Defendant had purchased from the Second named Defendant this particular laser imager processor which was installed in the First named Defendant's premises by the Second named Defendant on the 14th day of June, 1993.  In particular, it was installed in a room called the Daylight Processor Room which had been constructed for that very purpose.
	This machinery is highly complex and it appears to consist of images being brought by fibre optic cable from all parts of the hospital and put into a laser imager and then produced into the machine in question from which they emerge by way of a film.  
	At the time in question films from the said processor came from an opening on the front on to a metal tray.
	Almost immediately from the beginning of its operation, problems arose with the films that were coming from the machine onto the tray in that they were sticking together.  This was understood to be as a result of static electricity and the Second named Defendant's operatives came to the First named Defendant's premises to attempt to deal with the problem. The service report of 16th June, 1993 states that Mr. Wickam was unable to fit the static brush, though Mr. Wickam in the witness box did indicate that he had in some way fitted a static brush on that occasion.  Mr. Wickam also gave evidence that he returned on the 18th and fitted another static brush.  This was not properly fitted either as the kit which he had was incomplete.  This evidence would appear to have been borne out by further inspection of the machine on 5th July, 1993 when it was quite clear that the kit for the static brush had been incomplete.  Despite the fact that the kit for the static brush was incomplete, this information was not communicated to the First named Defendant nor was any warning given about it.
	The Second named Defendant had been informed by the servant or agent of the First named Defendant that two incidents of electro static shock had been experienced before 21st June, 1993.  As so frequently happens in these cases, the really relevant service reports of the Second named Defendant, namely those dealing with the situation between 16th and 21st June, 1993 were not available.  There was, therefore, no real explanation for the alteration on the service card dated 13th July, 1993 dealing with "fit anti-static brushes, etc.".  Also, the relevant service reports for 16th June, 1993 were not available.  There was no explanation why the cards, which were apparently safely stored in England, were not brought to Court, nor was there any explanation why the micro films of these cards and worksheets were not brought to Court.  This is in despite of the fact that there was evidence given that they had all been microfilmed prior to transportation to England.  
	On 21st June, 1993 at approximately 5 p.m. the Plaintiff in the course of her employment went to the Daylight Processing Room for the purposes of retrieving some film, and, on picking up one of the films she received a shock, which she felt as entering her right arm, crossing her chest and going down her left arm.  It threw her backwards across the room, she hallucinated, stumbled and was very very severely shaken.  She was off work at that time for two days and suffered the personal injuries which I will deal with hereafter.
	She reported the matter to her superiors and they immediately had the machine closed down.  The machine was inspected the following day by the operatives of the Second named Defendant, and by the electricians on behalf of the First named Defendant and it was found to be in perfect working order,  from a mains electrical point of view.  On 5th July, 1993 a high powered investigative team investigated the machine on behalf of the Second named Defendant and they came to the following conclusions:-

1.	This incident can only have been caused by static electricity as all the mains electrical fittings were shown to be present and working.

2.	With regard to the static brushes the anti-static kit that had been fitted, only a brush had been fitted and there were improper brackets and wire assembly.  The latter part of the wire assembly being an earth.
It goes on to say that this should have been installed in the position in accordance with the maintenance manual.  It should be noted that on 13th July, 1993 this full kit was fitted as suggested by the Second named Defendant and by his operatives and after that no further problems with regard to static emerged in the following years during the utilisation of the machine.  
	The Plaintiff claims that the shock which she received was due to the negligence of the Defendant in the failure properly to earth the said machine or provide anti-static brushes in a proper fashion.
	The Plaintiff also relies on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
	The reality of the case has been approached by the parties in approximately the same way.  It has been accepted by the Plaintiff and I accept that the mains electricity in this case was in good condition and could not and did not contribute to the cause of the accident which was caused by static electricity and a static electrical charge.  The question is as to whether or not the Defendants were negligent and, if negligent, were liable for the injuries suffered by the Plaintiff.  Mr. Rommeral, on behalf of the Plaintiff, gave evidence that there were two potential sources of static electricity in the machine, namely:-

(a)	The tin tray which appears on the top front of the machine could have been earthed by way of a connector underneath the lid making contact with the provided earth within the machine.  It was indicated that it was possible that that might not have occurred due to a failure to make proper adequate contact with the said earth.
(b)	It was indicated that the failure to have a proper static wire brush to deal with the films coming through would have been a source of static electricity which could have caused the shock to the Plaintiff. 

	It was agreed by Mr. Rommeral that the shock caused by static electricity would usually cause little more than a pin prick to the hand but he tempered this by quoting from British Standard 5958, Part I of 1991 at page 11:-

	"7.	The physiological effects of electric static discharges - the smallest spark of energy that a person can feel when a discharge occurs to or from his body is about 1 mj, that is the potential of about 2.5 kv if his capacitance is 300 pf.  As the potential is increased variations and responses are observed.  Some people find 10 mj uncomfortable due to muscular contraction, whereas others can accept several hundred millijoules before they experience sharp muscular contraction.  1,000 mj, i.e. 1 j affects everybody severely.  In incidents in which people have been rendered unconscious, the energy of the discharge was estimated to be several joules.  Since in most situations discharge energies are below 100 mj serious physiological shock is very rare.  There are exceptions, e.g. a discharge to a person due to a highly charged particulate matter collected in a non conductive container can be as much as several joules.  Irrespective of whether the shock itself is harmful the involuntary muscular contraction to a discharge may cause an accident through e.g. the dropping of a tool or precipitating a fall."

	This view was corroborated by a report called "Cenelec" of April 1998 which indicated at page 49, at paragraph 9/1 that the discharge of static electricity through a person's body can cause an electric shock. Such shocks rarely cause direct harm but involuntary movement resulting from the shock can lead to an injury or even death.
	Page 51 at paragraph 955 states that many types of equipment and processors cause electro static charging but it often goes unnoticed.  However, reports by operatives that they are receiving shocks should always be investigated.  It is likely that they are harmless but this is not always the case.  It can indicate that equipment is faulty and hazardous. 
	Basically, Mr. Rommeral indicated that, in his view, the cause of the accident was shock of an electric static nature from the machine quite likely caused by the build up of discharge in the tray and, in his view, may not have been earthed.  He relied on the matters which I have cited above for the purposes of indicating that whereas it is unlikely this type of shock will cause injury, it can do so.  The question also arose in the course of Mr. Rommeral's evidence as to whether or not it was possible that the Plaintiff could have been the source of the electro static shock, in other words, that the shock could have left her body and gone to the machine.  Evidence was given that this can happen and particularly in a hospital environment where people may build up electro static charges in their bodies.
	However, I am happy to say that by the end of the case, that particular aspect of the matter has been disposed of and I reject the concept now that the shock at any time was going from the Plaintiff's body to the machine.  The evidence for the First named Defendant, through their engineers, was that they had taken all adequate steps and all reasonable steps to ensure that the machine was safe and that the shock emanating from the machine, if any, should have been so small as not to really effect the Plaintiff.  In cross examination it was agreed that in certain circumstances a shock could build up so as to cause discomfort and distress to a specific Plaintiff.  The Second named Defendant's evidence regarding liability indicated that there were hundreds of machines around the world like this and that none of them had given any trouble of this nature.  However, it was notable that in the United States of America there was a specification requiring an electro static brush which was not incorporated into the models sold in this country.
	In the course of their extensive enquiries into the machine after the incident and indeed before the incident it is noted that no alteration was required to be necessary for the earthing of the tray, therefore, there does not appear to have been any evidence of this nature that the tray was not earthed at the time of the incident.  This was particularly so as it was stated that there was a magnetic key attached to the lid which, if it was not in place, would prevent the machine from functioning and that if the machine was functioning this was in place which meant that the earth of the tray had got to be in position.
	As stated above, there had been no alteration made to this and the evidence of the examination immediately after the incident being that it was in the correct position and there is no evidence to indicate in reality that this was not so.
	Therefore, this may have been a unique or rogue machine but whatever about other machines it is quite clear that this machine did, firstly, not appear to have an electro static brush fitted when provided by the Second named Defendant.  Secondly, it gave out electro static shocks at that time.  It was then incorrectly fitted or partially fitted with an electro static brush and it continued to give out electro static shocks.
	When finally fitted a proper electro static brush or anti static brush and full kit it ceased to give out electro static shocks.  
	I, therefore, hold that the Second named Defendants were negligent in providing a laser imager processor in such a condition that it gave off electro static shocks when, if properly equipped, it would not have done so.
	The First named Defendant was negligent in failing to provide the Plaintiff with safe equipment in the course of her employment as her employer.
	It is unusual that this type of shock should cause the damage which the Plaintiff suffered in this case.  However, I am satisfied that the damage which was caused was as a result of the shock, therefore, applying the principle of the "eggshell skull", I find that the Plaintiff was sensitive to this particular kind of shock as a result of which she suffered the damages hereinafter as set out.  The Plaintiff suffered an extreme trauma to her system.   The shock went into her right arm, across her chest and down her left arm.  Since that date, she continues to suffer from pain in her left arm, cramping in the area of her left arm and she is being kept awake at night.  Prior to the accident she was an outgoing, active and fun-loving person but since the accident she has become to all intense and purposes recluse, has eventually after attempting to keep going in her job until 1996 had to give it up.  She has undergone two regimes of pain treatment by Dr. Declan O'Keeffe to whom she was referred by Dr. Keavney and they have indicated in their reports that the pain results from neuropathic pain and post traumatic disorder.  She has had a sympathectomy done by Mr. Hederman in the Mater but none of these treatments have done her any real good at all.  In the course of her treatment for the purposes of the pain she has undergone something in the region of 12 general anaesthetics in injections of one form or another.  Her psychologist says that the Plaintiff had led a full and active life until the accident in 1993 which left her with chronic pain syndrome, post traumatic stress disorder and a radically changed and restricted lifestyle.  She has not only been traumatised by the accident itself but she has also suffered from the prolonged stresses arising from trying to cope with chronic pain and medical procedures as well as the loss of her career and normal life.  Overall the accident has caused Patricia immeasurable suffering and has tragically interfered with her young life emotionally, physically and mentally.  On behalf of the Defendants, Dr. Hutchenson and Dr. Ryan both indicate that the pain which she is suffering is not of a physical nature but of a psychological origin.  In particular, Dr. Hutchenson says it is not nerve related, this conflicts with the evidence of the two specialists in pain who have treated her on an ongoing and regular basis. 
	In the circumstances, I make the following findings:-

(1)	The Plaintiff suffered a static electrical shock which produced catastrophic consequences.
(2)	The shock was caused by the negligence of the Defendants.
(3)	It is foreseeable that the Plaintiff would receive a shock from the machine in question, indeed the Defendants were aware that the machine was already giving off shocks.
(4)	As the Defendants could foresee that the Plaintiff would receive a shock then they are liable for all the damages arising therefrom on the "eggshell skull" principle.  

I am holding against the Defendants when they argue that this case does not fall within the parameters of the "eggshell skull" principle.  
	My view, and I am holding as a fact that the injury which the Plaintiff suffered is of neuro genetic nature and was caused as a physical result of the shock which she suffered.  She has been unemployed since 1996 when she gave up acting as a Radiographer.  She has not worked since 1996 but since then she has undergone a number of attempts to get rehabilitation including a course in journalism and a course in attempting to participate in the running of a radio in one of the Technical Colleges.   Despite these endeavours and despite her best endeavours to occupy herself her every effort has been frustrated by the fact that her pain interferes with it.  Mrs. Smith, the Vocational Rehabilitation Consultant, indicates that as long as these symptoms persist it is unlikely that the Plaintiff will return to the labour force and will continue to be unemployed.  Under those circumstances, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for the injuries which she has suffered.  I accept the evidence, as given, that she has not worked since 1996 and I further accept the evidence that it is unlikely, on the balance of probabilities, that these symptoms will go away and particularly in this regard I rely on the evidence of Dr. O'Keeffe who was very very strong on the subject.  Under those circumstances, I think it is, on the balance of probabilities, the Plaintiff will not work again and under those circumstances I accept the figures of the actuary and I award her the following:-
1.	Loss of earnings to date	£  61,203
2.	Loss of earnings for the future 	£400,000
3.	Loss of Pension	£  45,000
4.	Loss of Gratuity	£  18,000
5.	Hospital and medical expenses	£  20,000
	General Damages
6.	Pain and suffering to date	£  60,000
7.	Pain and suffering in the future	£  60,000
	TOTAL	£664,203