A MAN who sustained injury while working as a security officer with Dunnes Stores in Ennis seven years ago has been awarded almost €40,000 in damages.
John Tynan (49), of Main Street, Clarecastle, took a civil case against Dunnes Stores Ltd, Molesworth Street, Dublin, arising out of an incident while he worked with the company.
Pat Quinn, BL for Mr Tynan, told Ennis Circuit Civil Court that his cli- ent was employed as a security officer at Dunnes Stores Limited in Ennis on April 21, 2002.
He said he suffered a personal injury while at work. This arose when he con- fronted a suspected shoplifter outside the Dunnes Stores shop. The suspected shoplifter was driving a white Nissan car at the time. He opened the door of the car and then drove the car forward. Mr Tynan, who was hanging on to the door of the car, was trapped between the door and the wing of the vehicle.
‘He was thrown to the ground. He thinks that as the vehicle fled the scene, it may have impacted with his leg,” said Mr Quinn.
He told the court his client sustained multiple soft tissue injuries and has ongoing pain to his right knee.
“The plaintiff’s case is his personal injuries were caused by negligence on behalf of Dunnes Stores on two erounds. He was working alone. He had no back-up, no assistance. He wasn’t provided with any adequate training or instructions. He had been essentially employed as a keyman, opening doors and working on alarms
and shortly before this, as a mobile plain-clothes store detective,” said Mr Quinn. “The system in place should have allowed for confrontation against the driver outside Dunnes Stores and not some distance hence, as was the case,” he said.
Mr Tynan told the court he started working in Dunnes Stores in 1999. He worked there as a keyman, three days a week.
He said he started working as a store detective four or five weeks before the incident at the centre of the proceed- ings. While as a store detective, he continued to work as a keyman.
Asked what training and instruc- tions he had received for the job as Store detective, he said, ““None.” He said he took all instructions from the then store security manager, John erento
Mr Tynan was the only store detec- tive on duty on the date of the incident, Sunday, April 21, 2002, and said only a very small number of staff worked on Sundays, due to budgetary reasons. At around lpm, a man walked into the menswear section of the shop. “He was looking around, mainly at the staff rather than the goods. He looked at clothing. I felt he might take the cloth- ing. He left the area and came down past where I was. He went to the mall area. A few minutes later he came back in through the shop,” he said.
He told the court the man returned to the men’s department, took two items of clothing and removed their tags. Mr Tynan was in the camera room at the time. He said he left there and went out to the carpark and followed the man. He did not think the man had a
car, until he saw him taking a key out of his pocket and opening the door of a car. Mr Tynan asked the man to re- turn to the store. He said the car sud- denly moved forward and gradually picked up more speed. He was near the driver’s door and said he knew he was going to fall. He fell to the ground, but managed to get himself up and contacted gardai. He sustained scratches and tears to the back of his hand. He received hospital treatment and 12 sessions of physiotherapy as a result of the incident.
“I thought I was doing the right thing,’ he said.
He continued to work at Dunnes Stores for 18 months after this had happened, but never worked as a store detective after the incident. “I wouldn’t do it again,” he said.
Asked what training he had been given in relation to pursuing suspect- ed shoplifters, he said, “None. The only thing we were told was to make sure a person had left a premises, in case there was an accusation of a false arrest, and then bring them back in.”
Murray Johnson, BL, for Dunnes Stores, asked Mr Tynan had he car- ried out an arrest previously. He re- plied that he had only carried out one unassisted arrest prior to this incident. Under cross-examination, Mr Tynan said, “I never actually realised he was going to drive off.”
Mr Tynan told the court he believed the suspected thief would have been stopped at the door, 1f another store detective was on duty with him.
Security consultant John Walsh told the court that he believed Mr Tynan attempted the arrest “thinking he was
a good employee, protecting his em- ployer’s stock.”
Mr Walsh, who has carried out work for Dunnes Stores in the 1970s and 1980s, said, “My view is that arrest should never have been attempted, for a number of reasons. One, that he was on his own. It could have been a dangerous situation. Two, there was no evidence available, had there been an arrest.
“T believe if there was a second per- son there, that arrest could have been made outside the door,” he said.
John Feeney, who was the store se- curity manager at the time, told the court that a general induction course was available for staff at Dunnes Stores, “but it wouldn’t have concen- trated on security in particular.”
Mr Quinn put it to him that the sys- tem in place in the store at the time of the incident appeared to be “half-haz- ard’. Mr Feeney replied that there had been a “tight budget”.
Judge O’Donohoe asked the witness should Mr Tynan have been left on his own. He replied, “I felt he shouldn’t have been left on his own.”
Security expert Pat Guiney, who is employed by Dunnes Stores, told the court that since last year, security staff must go through induction.
Referring to the incident at the cen- tre of the case, he said, “If he was the only security in the store that day, he would have access to walkie talkies.”
He said that Mr Tynan “didn’t have to go out to the carpark”. Judge O’Donohoe then put it to him, “I think this gentleman was trying to do his best.”
Mr Guiney replied, “Dunnes Stores
would not condone a security man- ager walking out to a carpark, trying to effect an arrest, without notifying a member of staff.”
Mr Quinn then asked the witness how would Mr Tynan have known that and he replied, “It’s common sense.”
Judge O’Donohoe said that the se- curity operation at Dunnes Stores at the time “sounded, to my mind, very careless and very short-sighted. This man could have been further injured. He could have lost his life.”
‘“‘He was exposed to this. He had no back-up. I’m quite satisfied on a negligence basis, Dunnes Stores were grossly in default. There was one se- curity officer trying to monitor and at the same time to apprehend,” said the judge. “Common sense says Dunnes Stores were trying to do matters on a shoe-string. They failed in their duty to their employee,” he said.
“Mr Tynan was a very good em- ployee and was told not to apprehend somebody until he got outside the premises. He wasn’t trained properly. Had adequate security been in place, this would have prevented the very se- rious potential of injury,” he said.
“Tt appears the plaintiff had a shock- ing experience. Along with the inju- ries, he had a very bad shock. It was probably beyond his belief that any- thing like this could have happened,” he said.
He awarded damages against Dunnes Stores. “I propose to award him the full jurisdiction of the circuit court – €38,092.14 – including special damages,” he said.