| 4.8°C Dublin

Ex-student sues old school after eye 'melted' by laser pen

Close

Claim: Dillon Breen, of Ferndale Avenue, Glasnevin, Dublin, leaves the Four Courts. Photo: Collins Courts

Claim: Dillon Breen, of Ferndale Avenue, Glasnevin, Dublin, leaves the Four Courts. Photo: Collins Courts

CollinsPhotoAgency

Claim: Dillon Breen, of Ferndale Avenue, Glasnevin, Dublin, leaves the Four Courts. Photo: Collins Courts

A man who claims he suffered a burn injury to his eye as a schoolboy when another student shone a laser beam in the classroom has sued the school in the High Court.

Dillon Breen (24) told the court he has to wear glasses for life after a part of the retina of his right eye was burned in the incident at St Kevin's College, Ballygall Road, Finglas, Dublin, eight years ago when he was a fifth-year student.

The other schoolboy, he said, did not mean to do something hurtful to him but shone the laser pen beam in his right eye.

He said he was doing exam papers and focusing down when the incident happened.

"He shone it in my right eye. I felt a burning sensation immediately.

"I didn't tell anybody, I didn't want to be a rat on anybody," he told Mr Justice Michael Hanna.

He said he later had headaches and went to hospital where he was told he "had melted part of my retina".

He added: "I had perfect 20:20 vision before. Now, I have a tick in my vision of the centre of my right eye. It has taken 10pc of my vision."

Mr Breen, of Ferndale Avenue, Glasnevin, Dublin, has sued the board of management of St Kevin's College and the producer and distributor of the sky green beam laser pointer pen Syncron Limited, of Rosemount Business Park, Ballycoolin, Dublin.

It is claimed the incident occurred on May 25, 2012.

Claims

The court heard judgment had been obtained previously against Syncron Ltd in default of appearance.

Mr Breen has claimed the school caused the pupils under their care to remain unsupervised.

The school allegedly failed to notice in sufficient time or at all or have any adequate regard to the fact that the pupils had upon their person dangerous products which could foreseeable cause harm to fellow pupils.

It was further claimed there was a failure to forbid or properly warn pupils that products which were known or ought reasonably to have been known to be in circulation and dangerous were not to be brought on school property.

It was also claimed there was a failure to supervise or otherwise control the school environment and its pupils in a safe and effective manner so as to ensure no injury would be caused to Mr Breen.

The claims are denied.

Irish Independent