Farmer and bovine embryologist loses €75,000 claim against Teagasc

After three days of hearing evidence in the case, Judge O’Moore dismissed the suit because Mr McDermott had failed to use an iron bar in a cattle pen that would have protected him from injury that day.

Mr Justice O’Moore also stated that he found Mr McDermott’s evidence to be “ambiguous and contradictory” and that he preferred the evidence provided by the stable manager, Mrs Simone McCabe, to Mr McDermott in relation to what happened.

The failed personal injury claim relates to Mr McDermott, who visited Teagasc’s premises in Grange, Dunsany, County Meath on October 14, 2015 to conduct 300 pregnancy tests on cows for the state agency.

Mr McDermott had by this time been in this type of work for 25 years and had performed this form of pregnancy testing for Teagasc in Dunsany three years before the accident.

The test was to be conducted by placing each cow in a cattle stall where the animal was restrained in a neck brace.

Standing behind the cow, Mr McDermott inserted his left arm into the rectum and used a probe to photograph the cow’s uterus. The resulting image would then be examined by Mr. McDermott to determine if the cow is pregnant.

The cattle stall was supplied with an iron bar to be placed between the animal and the embryologist and Mr Justice O’Moore stated that if the bar had been in place during Mr McDermott’s examination of the cattle on the day in question it would have been complete protected against injury from backward movement of an animal.

In his written judgment, Judge O’Moore stated, “There is no doubt that there are dangers in inserting your arm into the rectum of an adult cow while in close proximity to her hindquarters.”

He said: “One of the dangers is that the cow falls off or falls back or both. That’s why there’s a neck brace that holds the cow’s neck in place so she can’t move. Of course, the ruff itself can torment or kill the cow. That’s why a rear mounting bracket is available with the Crush. If the animal becomes distressed, the clamp or grid can be released without risk to the examiner. This risk is eliminated by using the restraint bar.”

Mr Justice O’Moore dismissed Mr McDermott’s allegation, stating: “By providing a crush box fitted with a restraining bar, Teagasc acted to reduce the risk to the plaintiff (Mr McDermott) from the type of injury he suffered. to eliminate.”

The judge explained: “It doesn’t take an engineer to realize that without using a rear handrail someone can be injured if the cow gets into distress and the gate is loosened as a result.”

In his testimony, Mr McDermott accepted that he was aware of the bar’s use as a safety feature elsewhere but that he had made a conscious decision that he did not need the bar at Dunsany and therefore did not inquire about the bar’s availability.

Mr Justice O’Moore stated: “The bar was indeed available to Mr McDermott and had he asked for it it would have been provided.

He said: “Mr. While McDermott was aware of the protection using this bolt would provide, it was not his usual practice to use one.

He added: “This was because using the bar would slow down the process of checking the animals, it would mean fewer cattle would be slaughtered in the day and as he was being paid by the beast he would make less money. “

Each examination lasted a minute and Mr McDermott was about halfway through the 300 cattle when one cow became “restless and trembling and anoxic” while conducting an examination.

The ruff had to be loosened to relieve the animal. Mr. McDermott called and the gate was released causing the ruff to come off and the cow fell on Mr. McDermott and he was injured.

As evidence, Mr McDermott said: “When I realized what was happening I said ‘We’re in trouble here’ or something like that. I don’t remember the exact words.”

Ms McCabe explained that she only realized Mr McDermott was injured when he said: “My leg’s gone”.

Teagasc argued that Mr. McDermott was responsible for his own injuries as he failed to step away from the animal or the cattle pen.