Wet Floor Accident Claims in Ireland
Author: Gary Matthews, Principal Solicitor, Law Society of Ireland PC No. S8178 | Ormond Building, 31-36 Ormond Quay Upper, Dublin D07 | 01 903 6408 |
This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different and outcomes vary. Consult a qualified solicitor for advice specific to your situation.
A wet floor accident claim in Ireland is a personal injury claim brought against the occupier of a premises where a person has slipped on a wet or contaminated surface. If you've been injured after slipping on a wet floor in a shop, restaurant, or hotel, you may be entitled to compensation. Under Irish law, the question is not simply whether a warning sign was missing. Irish courts examine whether the occupier had an adequate cleaning and inspection system in place and whether that system was actually being followed at the time of the accident. The Occupiers' Liability Act 1995 (as amended) [1], as amended in July 2023, sets the legal framework. If a spill sat on a shop floor, a restaurant aisle, or a hotel lobby while staff walked past it, the occupier may be liable for your injuries.
In short: You may have a valid claim if an occupier's cleaning system failed to detect or remove a wet floor hazard in a reasonable time. Courts in Ireland apply a specific legal test under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1995. The occupier must show their system was adequate and was being followed. A missing sign matters, but it is not the whole test. Start by preserving CCTV and requesting the accident report book entry.
Quick answers
Can I claim? Yes, if the occupier's cleaning system failed to detect or remove the hazard and you were injured as a result.
What is the time limit? Two years from the date of the accident in most cases under Irish law.
What evidence matters most? CCTV footage showing how long the spill was present and whether staff responded.
How much compensation? Ranges from 14,800 euro for minor soft tissue injuries to over 94,000 euro for hip fractures, based on the Personal Injuries Guidelines (2021). 11
Quick check: could you have a wet floor claim?
Answer five questions about your accident. This is not legal advice. It gives a general indication only.
1. Did you slip on a wet or contaminated floor on someone else's premises in Ireland?
This tool provides general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case depends on its specific facts.
Contents
What is a wet floor accident claim?
A wet floor accident claim is a type of public liability claim where a person seeks compensation after slipping on a wet or contaminated surface on someone else's premises in Ireland. The claim targets the occupier of the premises, the person or business that controls the space where the accident happened. Wet floors can result from liquid spills, cleaning activity, rainwater tracked through an entrance, roof leaks, condensation, or damaged drainage.
These claims fall under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1995, which sets out the duty of care an occupier owes to visitors. Not every fall on a wet surface leads to a valid claim. The claimant must show that the occupier failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the hazard or to warn visitors about it in a way that allowed them to avoid injury.
According to the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) [2], nearly 50% of all claims made against retailers in Ireland involve slips, trips, and falls. Wet floors are the single most common trigger within that category.
How do Irish courts decide wet floor cases?
Irish courts apply what practitioners call the "cleaning system test" to determine whether an occupier is liable for a wet floor accident. The test comes from the Supreme Court's decision in Mullen v Quinnsworth (No. 2) [1991] ILRM 439 and has been applied consistently in the Court of Appeal since then.
The principle works like this: once a claimant proves that they slipped on a substance or liquid on a premises floor, the burden of proof shifts to the occupier. The occupier must then show that they had a reasonable system of cleaning and inspection in place and that the system was actually being followed at the time of the accident.
A detail that catches many claimants off guard: the mere fact that a floor was wet doesn't automatically mean the occupier is at fault. The occupier isn't an insurer of visitor safety. However, if the occupier can't produce evidence of their cleaning system, or if CCTV shows staff walking past a visible spill without responding, the court will draw conclusions from that gap.
Courts examine several specific elements of the cleaning system:
| System element | What courts look for |
|---|---|
| Cleaning schedule | Written rota showing planned cleaning times and intervals |
| Inspection frequency | How often staff checked for hazards, especially in high-traffic areas |
| Staff training | Whether cleaning staff received specific training on hazard detection and vigilance |
| Response protocol | What happened when a spill was reported or discovered |
| Cleaning logs | Signed records showing that inspections were actually carried out |
| Warning signs | Whether signs were deployed, visible, and placed in time |
In Whelan v Dunnes Stores [2022] IECA 133 [3], the Court of Appeal upheld an award of over 83,000 euro for a shopper who slipped on an oil-like substance in a supermarket aisle. The court accepted inferential evidence that a contaminant was present, even though the CCTV did not clearly show the spill itself. The cleaning response and gaps in the system were enough to establish liability.
How the 2023 law changes affect your claim
The Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 amended the Occupiers' Liability Act 1995, changing how courts assess liability in premises accident cases including wet floor claims. These amendments took effect on 31 July 2023 and apply to all claims assessed after that date. Courts and Civil Law Act 2023 [4]
The new Section 3(1A) requires courts to weigh five specific factors when deciding whether an occupier met their duty of care to a visitor:
| Factor | What it means for wet floor claims |
|---|---|
| Probability of the danger existing | Was a spill or wet surface likely in this type of premises? A busy supermarket deli counter scores higher than a dry goods aisle. |
| Probability of injury occurring | Given the location and foot traffic, how likely was it that someone would slip? |
| Probable severity of injury | A fall on a hard tile floor in a hospital corridor carries more severe consequences than a fall on a carpeted surface. |
| Practicability and cost of prevention | Could the occupier have used a scrubber-dryer instead of a mop? Was physical segregation of the wet area possible? |
| Social utility of the activity | Cleaning a floor has social utility. However, cleaning during peak hours without barriers or signs may tip the balance toward liability. |
The 2023 amendments also inserted a new Section 5A: voluntary assumption of risk. Under this provision, an occupier does not owe a duty to a visitor who willingly accepted a risk they were capable of understanding. The court can infer acceptance from the visitor's words or conduct, without requiring a signed waiver. Law Society Gazette (July 2023) [5]
Practical impact: If a clearly visible, well-placed "Caution: Wet Floor" sign was in position and you walked through the hazard area anyway, the occupier now has a stronger defence than before July 2023. However, a sign placed behind you, or one that arrived after the spill had been present for some time, may not be enough to trigger this defence.
Does a wet floor sign prevent you from claiming?
A wet floor sign is one factor in the liability analysis, but it does not automatically prevent a claim. Under Section 3(5) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1995, a warning is not treated as absolving the occupier "unless, in all the circumstances, it was enough to enable the visitor, by having regard to the warning, to avoid the injury." 1
This means the sign must have been visible, placed in time, and positioned where the visitor would see it before reaching the hazard. A sign placed at one end of a long aisle does not protect an occupier if a visitor enters from the other end.
The HSA guidance on wet floor cleaning [6] goes further. The HSA states that warning signs are often ineffective in preventing accidents and should only be used where hazards cannot be avoided or adequately reduced. If the occupier could have eliminated the hazard through dry-cleaning methods, better equipment, or physical barriers, a sign alone may not meet the duty of care.
The timing matters more than most guides suggest: a sign placed after a person has already fallen has no protective value at all. In cases handled in Irish courts, the CCTV timeline showing when the sign appeared relative to when the spill occurred has been a turning point.
The HSA also identifies a specific hazard that catches both occupiers and visitors off guard: mop-dried floors. A floor that has been mopped may look dry to a pedestrian but can retain microscopic moisture that drastically reduces slip resistance. The HSA warns that non-cleaners are the primary victims [19] of this type of hazard because they have no reason to suspect the surface is dangerous. If an occupier mopped a floor and placed no sign because the floor "looked dry," the mop-dry hazard may still ground a claim.
How do courts decide if the occupier knew about the hazard?
Irish courts distinguish between two types of knowledge when assessing wet floor liability: actual notice and constructive notice. This distinction often determines whether a claim succeeds or fails.
Actual notice means the occupier's staff directly created the hazard (for example, by mopping during business hours) or directly witnessed a spill and failed to act. In these cases, the occupier clearly knew about the danger.
Constructive notice is the more common battleground. It applies when a spill or wet surface existed for long enough that a reasonable inspection system should have detected and removed it. The claimant doesn't need to prove exactly when the spill occurred. They need to show that the occupier's system wasn't good enough to catch it in a reasonable time.
The IRB statistics don't capture this distinction, but in practice it shapes how evidence is gathered. CCTV footage showing a spill sitting undisturbed for several minutes while staff walk past builds a strong constructive notice case. Cleaning logs with gaps of 45 minutes or more in a high-traffic area point to an inspection system that wasn't adequate for the risk.
Where do wet floor accidents happen most?
Wet floor accidents in Ireland occur most often in retail premises, restaurants, hotels, pubs, hospitals, and workplaces with hard-floor surfaces. The HSA identifies six sectors that generate 81% of all slips, trips, and falls despite employing only 55% of the workforce. These "Big Six" include retail, healthcare, and transport. HSA: Factors in Slips, Trips and Falls [7]
Common wet floor scenarios include:
| Location | Typical hazard |
|---|---|
| Supermarkets | Product spills in food aisles, condensation near freezers, produce dropped in fruit and vegetable sections |
| Restaurants and cafes | Drink and food spills, mopping during service hours, kitchen grease near doorways |
| Hotels | Wet lobby floors during rain, pool areas, dance floors with spilled drinks |
| Pubs and nightclubs | Beer and drink spillage on hard floors, crowded areas where spills are left unchecked |
| Shopping centres | Rainwater at entrances, escalator areas, food court spills |
| Hospitals | Over-polished floors, cleaning during visiting hours, spills near vending areas |
A point about floor type: the HSA references the Pendulum Test Value (PTV) [8] as a method for measuring slip resistance. Under industry standards applied in Irish practice, a floor surface should achieve a PTV of 36 or higher when wet to be classified as "low slip potential." Floors that score below this threshold in a wet or contaminated state represent a known risk, and an occupier who installs such flooring in a high-spill area may face liability questions from the outset.
What evidence wins a wet floor claim?
The evidence that matters most in an Irish wet floor claim is anything that shows how long the hazard was present and what the occupier did or failed to do about it. This is because the central legal question, as set out in the cleaning system test above, focuses on whether the occupier's system detected and responded to the hazard in a reasonable time.
The strongest evidence types in Irish wet floor cases, in order of impact:
| Evidence type | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| CCTV footage | Shows hazard duration, staff movements, whether anyone walked past the spill, and the mechanism of the fall |
| Cleaning and inspection logs | Show whether the occupier had a written system and whether it was followed on the day of the accident |
| Accident report book entry | The occupier's own contemporaneous record of the incident |
| Photographs of the hazard | Visual proof of the wet surface, absence of signs, floor type, lighting conditions |
| Witness statements | Other people who saw the hazard, the fall, or staff response |
| Medical records | Connect the accident to the injuries and document the treatment timeline |
| Footwear preservation | Removes the insurer's common argument in Irish courts that your shoes caused the fall |
One aspect the official guidance does not cover: the occupier's staff training records. In Desmond v Dunnes Stores [2020] IECA 125, the Court of Appeal found the cleaning system inadequate partly because the cleaner had no specific training that emphasised vigilance and look-out while on duty. The cleaner walked past the spill area without noticing it. 3
For a full breakdown of evidence types across all public liability claims, see our evidence guide.
What strengthens a wet floor claim vs what weakens it
| Strengthens your claim | Weakens your claim |
|---|---|
| CCTV shows the spill was present for several minutes before the fall | CCTV shows the spill appeared seconds before and staff had no chance to respond |
| No cleaning log entries for the hour before the accident | Cleaning logs show a check was completed minutes before the fall |
| No warning sign was in place at the time of the fall | A clearly visible sign was positioned before you reached the area |
| Staff walked past the hazard without responding | Staff responded immediately but you fell before they reached the area |
| The spill was in a high-traffic zone where hazards are foreseeable | The spill was in an unusual location where hazards are rare |
| You reported the accident and preserved evidence on the day | You left without reporting and waited weeks to take action |
Why CCTV is often the deciding factor
CCTV footage is frequently the single most important piece of evidence in an Irish wet floor case because it shows what no other evidence can: the timeline. It records when the spill appeared, how long it sat on the floor, whether staff walked past it, and whether signs or barriers were deployed before or after the fall.
In the Whelan v Dunnes Stores case, CCTV played a central role. The footage showed a cleaner being directed to the area after the fall and wiping two distinct spots with blue paper towel for 40 seconds. The court used this footage to draw inferences about the presence of a contaminant, even though the liquid itself was not clearly visible on camera. 3
The problem is timing. Most commercial CCTV systems in Ireland overwrite footage within 14 to 30 days. If you don't act quickly, the recording of your accident will be gone. Between assessment and settlement, the sticking point is usually whether the occupier's footage has survived long enough to be reviewed.
Your right to CCTV: Under GDPR Article 15 and Section 91 of the Data Protection Act 2018 [9], you have the right to submit a Subject Access Request (SAR) for any CCTV footage that contains your image. This right exists independently of any legal claim. Send the request in writing to the data controller (the business) within days of the accident. Include a separate preservation notice demanding they freeze the footage. For detailed steps, see our GDPR CCTV request guide.
The Data Protection Commission (February 2021) [10] has confirmed that under Irish data protection law, a data controller cannot refuse your access request simply because litigation is anticipated. The right to access under GDPR operates separately from the rules on legal discovery.
What will the occupier's insurer argue against you?
Insurers defending wet floor claims in Ireland raise a predictable set of arguments. Knowing what to expect helps you and your solicitor prepare for each one from the start.
| Defence argument | How it works in practice |
|---|---|
| The floor wasn't wet | The insurer disputes that a hazard existed at all. CCTV, photographs, and the accident report book entry are the direct counters. If the occupier's own staff cleaned the area after the fall, that response tends to undermine the "there was nothing there" argument. |
| The cleaning system was adequate | The insurer produces cleaning logs and inspection rotas to show the floor was checked regularly. The claimant's solicitor examines whether those logs are genuine, consistent with CCTV, and whether the intervals were reasonable for the level of foot traffic. |
| The spill happened seconds before | The insurer argues there was no time to detect and remove the hazard. CCTV showing the spill present for even a few minutes before the fall weakens this argument. In premises where spills are foreseeable, courts expect a more frequent inspection cycle. |
| Your footwear caused the fall | Insurers routinely point to shoes as the cause. In Whelan v Dunnes Stores, the claimant wore wedge shoes. In the Duddy case, the claimant wore flip-flops. In both cases, the court found the occupier liable because the floor system was inadequate regardless of footwear. Preserving your shoes and photographing them removes this line of attack. |
| You saw the sign and walked through anyway | Since the 2023 amendments, this argument carries more weight under the voluntary assumption of risk defence (Section 5A). However, the sign must have been visible, positioned correctly, and placed before the spill. A sign placed too late, or in the wrong location, won't protect the occupier. |
| You were intoxicated | If alcohol contributed to the fall, the insurer may argue contributory negligence. In the dance floor cases, the courts acknowledged alcohol consumption but still found the hotel liable because the hazard on the floor was the primary cause, not the alcohol. |
The common thread across all six arguments: the insurer's goal is to shift responsibility away from the cleaning system and onto the claimant. The stronger your evidence of system failure, the harder it is for any of these defences to succeed.
What injuries are common after a wet floor fall?
Falls on wet floors in Ireland commonly cause fractures, soft tissue knee injuries, back injuries, wrist fractures, head injuries, and psychological trauma. The type of injury depends on the floor surface, the height and angle of the fall, and the person's age and physical condition.
| Injury | Personal Injuries Guidelines range (general damages) |
|---|---|
| Wrist fracture | 19,300 to 78,000 euro |
| Knee soft tissue injury | 14,800 to 81,600 euro |
| Hip fracture or dislocation | 27,100 to 94,800 euro |
| Ankle soft tissue injury | 23,000 to 62,300 euro |
| Back injury (ongoing) | 18,300 to 69,700 euro |
| Head injury (concussion) | 19,000 to 74,000 euro |
Figures are general damages only, from the Judicial Council Personal Injuries Guidelines (2021) [11]. Awards vary case by case. Special damages (medical bills, lost earnings, travel costs) are added separately. For a full breakdown, see our compensation guide.
According to the IRB's Award Values Report for 2024 [12], the median award across all personal injury types was 13,000 euro, up 12% from 2023. The average award was 18,967 euro. Psychological injury now accounts for 14% of all awards, up from 5% in 2021, which is relevant for claimants who develop anxiety or trauma after a public fall.
The difference between two Irish wet floor awards shows how consequential losses shape the total. In Whelan v Dunnes Stores, a knee injury requiring replacement surgery resulted in 83,250 euro. In Duddy v Allingham Arms Hotel, a wrist injury from a wet dance floor led to an award of over 233,000 euro because the loss of earnings component (178,486 euro) was far larger. The injury type alone does not determine the award.
How is compensation assessed?
Compensation for a wet floor accident in Ireland is assessed under two headings: general damages for pain and suffering, and special damages for financial losses. The Personal Injuries Guidelines (2021), formerly the Book of Quantum, provide the ranges. Both the Injuries Resolution Board (IRB) and the courts use these Guidelines when assessing claims. 11
General damages cover pain, suffering, and loss of quality of life. Special damages cover actual financial losses such as medical expenses, physiotherapy costs, lost wages, travel expenses for treatment, and future care needs.
Where multiple injuries result from the same fall, courts don't simply add the figures together. They value the most serious injury first and adjust upward for secondary injuries. The overall award must be proportionate.
For a detailed breakdown of how compensation is calculated across all public liability injuries, see our public liability compensation guide.
What to do after slipping on a wet floor
The steps you take in the first 48 hours after a wet floor accident in Ireland directly affect the strength of any claim you later make. Evidence of wet floor hazards disappears quickly. Floors are cleaned, CCTV is overwritten, and staff memories fade. Acting early protects your position.
Critical evidence deadlines
Your evidence deadlines
Enter the date of your accident to see your specific deadlines.
These are general timeframes. Specific circumstances may affect your deadlines. Consult a solicitor for advice on your situation.
1. Get medical attention. See your GP or attend A&E. Medical records created close to the date of the accident connect your injuries to the fall. Delayed treatment gives insurers room to question whether the accident caused the injury.
2. Report the accident. Ask the manager or person in charge to record the incident in the accident report book. Request a copy of the entry. If they refuse to provide one, note the refusal and the name of the person who refused.
Watch what you say at the scene. After a fall, people often say "I'm fine" or "it was my own fault" out of embarrassment. These statements can end up in the accident report and be quoted back during the claim. Stick to the facts: describe what happened, where you fell, and what you noticed on the floor. Don't accept blame, speculate about the cause, or downplay your pain. If staff ask you to sign anything, read it carefully first or ask your solicitor to review it.
3. Preserve CCTV immediately. Send a written preservation notice and Subject Access Request to the business within days. CCTV systems overwrite within 14 to 30 days. See our CCTV request guide for the exact steps.
4. Photograph the scene. Take clear photos showing the wet surface, the area around it, any signs (or absence of signs), the floor type, and your footwear. If there is a visible spill, photograph it from several angles.
5. Collect witness details. Get the names and phone numbers of anyone who saw the hazard or the fall. One detail that surprises clients: a witness who saw the floor before you fell and can confirm it was wet often carries more weight than a witness who only saw you on the ground.
6. Contact a solicitor. Under Section 8 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 [13], a formal notice of the claim must be sent to the occupier "as soon as practicable" after the accident. In practice, solicitors aim to send this within one month. Missing this obligation can lead to adverse cost consequences. A solicitor can also issue a formal CCTV preservation letter on your behalf.
7. Keep records of expenses. Hold on to receipts for prescriptions, GP visits, physiotherapy, travel to appointments, and any other costs arising from the injury.
Wet floor at work or in a public place?
If you slipped on a wet floor at your workplace, the legal route is different from a public liability claim. An employer owes duties under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 [14], which imposes specific obligations on safe access, floor maintenance, and risk assessment. The employer may also have separate insurance covering workplace injuries.
If you were a customer, visitor, or member of the public on the premises, the claim falls under public liability and the Occupiers' Liability Act 1995.
The distinction matters because the duties, the insurance policies, and the applicable legislation are different. If you're unsure which route applies, see our guide on public liability vs employer liability or our slip and fall at work guide.
Quick check: are you on the right page?
If you slipped on a wet floor in a shop, supermarket, restaurant, hotel, pub, hospital, or other premises open to the public, this page covers your situation.
If you slipped on a wet floor at your workplace, see slip and fall at work claims.
If you tripped on an uneven surface rather than a wet one, see uneven surface claims.
If your accident was on a public footpath or road maintained by a council, see local authority claims.
How long do you have to make a claim?
In Ireland, the standard time limit for a personal injury claim after a wet floor accident is two years from the date of the accident. This is set by the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991 [15]. There are limited exceptions for children (the clock starts at 18) and for cases involving delayed knowledge of the injury. Citizens Information provides an accessible overview of how limitation periods work across all civil claim types.
While two years sounds like a long window, the practical reality is different. Medical reports take time to arrange, CCTV footage disappears within weeks, and the IRB application requires detailed documentation. Starting late compresses every step.
For a full explanation of time limits, extensions, and exceptions, see our time limit guide.
How the IRB process works for wet floor claims
Most wet floor accident claims in Ireland must first go through the Injuries Resolution Board (IRB), formerly the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) until 2023, before court proceedings can begin. The IRB is an independent body that assesses compensation without the need for a hearing. You apply with a completed Form A, a medical report from your treating doctor, and the application fee. IRB: Making a Claim [16]
The occupier (the respondent) has 90 days to confirm whether they consent to the IRB assessing the claim. If they consent, the IRB typically completes its assessment within approximately nine months. If the respondent disputes liability, or if either side rejects the assessment, the IRB issues an Authorisation allowing the claim to proceed to court.
According to the IRB's Award Values Report (April 2025) 12, 71% of respondents now consent to the process, and 50% of assessments are accepted by both sides. The IRB's expanded mediation service resolves cases in approximately three months. 17
For a detailed walkthrough of the IRB process for public liability claims, see our IRB process guide.
What does Irish case law say about wet floor accidents?
Three Court of Appeal decisions illustrate how the cleaning system test operates in practice. Each case turned on what the occupier could or could not prove about their floor maintenance procedures.
Whelan v Dunnes Stores [2022] IECA 133
A shopper slipped on an oil-like substance in a supermarket aisle in Walkinstown, Dublin. The High Court awarded 83,250 euro. Dunnes appealed on both liability and quantum. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge was entitled to infer a contaminant was present based on the circumstances, even without direct visual proof on CCTV. The cleaner had been directed to the area after the fall and wiped two spots for 40 seconds. The cleaning response and system gaps supported the finding of negligence. 3
Desmond v Dunnes Stores [2020] IECA 125
A shopper fractured her right hip after slipping on spillage in a Bishopstown, Cork supermarket. The trial judge relied on the Mullen v Quinnsworth principle and shifted the burden to Dunnes to prove their system was adequate. CCTV showed a cleaner had passed through the aisle but lacked specific training on vigilance and look-out. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of liability. The High Court had awarded 102,000 euro. Irish Legal News (May 2020) [18]
Duddy v Allingham Arms Hotel
A social dancer slipped on a wet dance floor at a hotel in Co Donegal. The hotel had no system for checking, monitoring, or cleaning spillages on the dance floor during events. The court awarded 233,500 euro, including 55,000 euro in general damages and 178,486 euro for loss of earnings from a wrist injury. The case confirmed that venues where drink spillage is foreseeable must have a proactive monitoring system in place.
When spills are built into the business model
The Duddy case illustrates a broader principle sometimes called the "mode of operation" doctrine. Where a business operates in a way that makes continuous spills highly foreseeable, it may be held liable even without proof that staff had notice of the specific spill that caused the fall. A self-service produce section where customers handle loose grapes, a nightclub dance floor with open drinks, or a pub with standing-room service all create conditions where spills are part of the normal operation. In these settings, Irish courts expect a more active and frequent monitoring system than in a dry goods aisle or an office corridor.
The pattern across all three cases: the occupier either lacked a system, had a system on paper that was not followed in practice, or had staff who were not trained to detect and respond to hazards. The cases confirm that having a cleaner on the premises is not the same as having an adequate cleaning system.
References
- Occupiers' Liability Act 1995 (revised), Law Reform Commission
- Slips, Trips and Falls Info, Health and Safety Authority
- Whelan v Dunnes Stores [2022] IECA 133, Courts Service
- Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023, Irish Statute Book
- Duty-of-care law change comes into effect, Law Society Gazette, July 2023
- Segregate Wet and Damp Floors, HSA
- Factors in Slips, Trips and Falls on the Same Level, HSA
- Measuring Slip Resistance, HSA
- Data Protection Act 2018, Irish Statute Book
- CCTV, Discovery and Access Requests, Data Protection Commission, February 2021
- Personal Injuries Guidelines, Judicial Council of Ireland, 2021
- Award Values Report H2 2024, Injuries Resolution Board, April 2025
- Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, s.8, Irish Statute Book
- Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, Irish Statute Book
- Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991, Irish Statute Book
- Making a claim, Injuries Resolution Board
- Annual Report 2024 (Press Release), Injuries Resolution Board, July 2025
- Court of Appeal: Dunnes Stores personal injuries appeal dismissed, Irish Legal News, May 2020
- Identify Floor Cleaning Slip Risks, Health and Safety Authority
Common questions about wet floor accident claims
Can I claim if I slipped on a wet floor in a shop?
You may have a valid claim if the shop failed to maintain a proper cleaning and inspection system. The shop must show that it had a system for detecting and clearing spills and that the system was being followed at the time of your accident. A missing wet floor sign strengthens your case but is not the only factor courts consider.
How much compensation can I get for a wet floor accident?
Compensation depends on the type and severity of your injury and your financial losses. General damages for common wet floor injuries range from around 14,800 euro for minor soft tissue knee injuries to over 94,000 euro for hip fractures, based on the Personal Injuries Guidelines. Loss of earnings and medical expenses are assessed separately. 11
Do I need a solicitor for a wet floor claim?
You're not legally required to use a solicitor, but wet floor claims can involve complex evidence around cleaning systems, CCTV analysis, and the 2023 legislative changes. A solicitor can issue preservation notices for CCTV, obtain cleaning logs, instruct engineers, and present the claim to the IRB. Most people find professional representation helps.
What if I was partly at fault for the accident?
Contributory negligence may reduce your compensation but doesn't necessarily prevent a claim. If you were distracted, wearing unsuitable footwear, or ignored a visible warning, the court may reduce the award by a percentage reflecting your share of responsibility. The occupier's duty to maintain a safe system still applies.
As a practical example: if a court assesses your total compensation at 40,000 euro but finds you were 25% at fault (perhaps you were wearing flip-flops in a known wet area), the award reduces to 30,000 euro. The occupier still pays the remaining 75% because the floor system was inadequate. Irish courts apply this proportional approach rather than treating any fault on your part as a complete bar to claiming.
How long does a wet floor claim take?
Timelines vary depending on the facts. If the occupier consents to the IRB process in Ireland and both sides accept the assessment, a straightforward case can resolve in 9 to 12 months. If liability is disputed or the case goes to court, it can take significantly longer. The IRB's expanded mediation service can resolve some cases in approximately three months. 17
Can I claim if there was a wet floor sign?
Yes, in some circumstances. A sign does not automatically defeat your claim. The court will consider whether the sign was visible, placed in time, and whether it gave you enough information to avoid the danger. If the hazard could have been removed instead of merely signed, the sign may not be enough to absolve the occupier. 1
What if the CCTV has been deleted?
You can still pursue a claim without CCTV, but it is harder to prove how long the hazard was present. Cleaning logs, accident report entries, witness statements, and photographs can support your case. The absence of CCTV may also work in your favour if the occupier can't produce evidence of their cleaning system in operation.
Does the wet floor need to have been there for a long time?
Not necessarily. Courts look at whether the occupier's system should have detected the hazard, not just how long it was present. If the system was inadequate or not being followed, even a spill present for a short time can result in liability. In locations where spills are highly foreseeable, such as near self-service counters, the occupier is expected to have a more active monitoring system.
Can I still claim if I didn't report the accident at the time?
Yes. Many people leave the scene without reporting because they feel embarrassed, think the injury is minor, or don't want a confrontation. Not reporting does not prevent a claim, but it does make evidence harder to collect. There may be no accident book entry, and CCTV may be overwritten before anyone requests it. If you didn't report at the time, contact a solicitor as soon as possible so they can send a preservation notice for any remaining footage and begin building the evidence from other sources.
This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different and outcomes vary. In contentious business, a solicitor may not calculate fees or other charges as a percentage or proportion of any award or settlement. Consult a qualified solicitor for advice specific to your situation.
If you have been injured after slipping on a wet floor and want to discuss your situation, contact Gary Matthews Solicitors at 01 903 6408 for an initial consultation.
Gary Matthews Solicitors
Medical negligence solicitors, Dublin
We help people every day of the week (weekends and bank holidays included) that have either been injured or harmed as a result of an accident or have suffered from negligence or malpractice.
Contact us at our Dublin office to get started with your claim today
