CCTV Exposes Guard Who Set Up ‘Wet Floor’ Sign Before Claiming Fall

Claim Collapses After CCTV Reveals Damning Twist

An eight-year personal injury claim against the popular fast-food chain Supermac’s has collapsed in dramatic fashion after CCTV footage revealed a crucial flaw in the claimant’s narrative. Pero Culjak, a security worker, withdrew his long-running legal action after video evidence showed him erecting the very ‘wet floor’ sign he alleged was absent before he slipped and fell.

The case, which had been active since the incident in October 2016, highlights the significant financial and administrative burden placed on businesses defending such claims, with the owner of Supermac’s, Pat McDonagh, condemning a system that allows plaintiffs to walk away without consequence, leaving his company to absorb substantial legal costs.

The Allegations of a Life-Altering Fall

The legal proceedings began after Mr Culjak, 42, of Clearstream Court, Finglas, Dublin, alleged he suffered debilitating injuries while on duty at the Supermac’s branch in Roscrea, Co Tipperary. In his personal injuries summons, he claimed to have slipped on a recently mopped floor, resulting in a heavy fall onto his back and head. The immediate aftermath, as he described it, was severe. He claimed he was “unable to move his legs” and required an ambulance to transport him to Tullamore General Hospital on a spinal board.

Mr Culjak’s account detailed a five-day hospital stay involving numerous CT scans and X-rays. He alleged his injuries were so significant that he was bed-bound, needing assistance from nursing staff for basic functions like eating and using the toilet. Although he returned to work a week after the incident, he stated it was on lighter duties due to persistent health issues.

The claim asserted that the fall had long-term consequences, citing continuous lower back pain, neck discomfort, and disturbed sleep. He maintained that his quality of life had been severely diminished; he could no longer perform heavy household chores, required assistance with his weekly grocery shopping, and had been forced to give up playing basketball, a personal passion. The legal basis for his claim against both Supermac’s and his employer, Vigilant Security Services, was negligence. He alleged the fast-food chain had failed in its duty of care by not alerting him to the hazard “by way of warning barriers and/or signs” and by “permitting the plaintiff to walk in the vicinity of the shop floor where the floor was slippery.”

A Protracted Battle and a Pivotal Revelation

For years, the case proceeded through the legal system. Supermac’s maintained its defence, while Mr Culjak’s legal team at Rogers Solicitors made several requests for the CCTV footage from the day of the accident. The turning point finally arrived in February of last year when the crucial video evidence was provided. What it contained would unravel the entire foundation of the claim.

Contrary to the central allegation that no warning signs were present, the footage clearly showed Mr Culjak himself picking up and erecting a yellow ‘wet floor’ sign. Just five minutes later, a Supermac’s staff member began cleaning the floor in that same area. Mr Culjak was then seen proceeding to walk across the wet patch, where the slip occurred. The evidence directly contradicted his sworn statements and formed an insurmountable obstacle for his legal case.

The Solicitor-Client Relationship Breaks Down

Upon viewing the footage, Rogers Solicitors immediately recognised the grave implications. In an affidavit filed with the Courts Service, Ciaran Rogers detailed how the firm advised Mr Culjak that, in light of the new evidence, his claim was highly unlikely to succeed at trial. They pointed out the stark inconsistencies between his allegations and the reality captured on camera. Furthermore, they warned him of the significant financial risk he now faced. If he proceeded and lost, Supermac’s could “vigorously” pursue him for their legal costs, which were estimated to be as high as €40,000.

According to the affidavit, Mr Culjak was reluctant to accept this legal advice, leading to what Mr Rogers described as “a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.” Faced with a client unwilling to withdraw a case they now believed to be untenable, the firm presented an ultimatum. An exhibit filed in court revealed that Rogers Solicitors would only continue to represent Mr Culjak if he furnished €30,000 upfront to cover future legal costs. The letter explained that if the case failed, the solicitors and barristers involved “will not be paid for the work, time and money spent on your case over the years.” When Mr Culjak did not provide the funds, the firm applied to the court to come off record, advising him that while he could seek new representation, any other solicitor would likely reach the same conclusion upon viewing the CCTV.

Supermac’s Chief Condemns ‘Absolutely Ridiculous’ System

On November 24th, the matter concluded at Clonmel Circuit Court, where it was confirmed that the claim was being withdrawn. The proceedings were struck out, but critically, no order was made regarding costs. This means Supermac’s, despite being vindicated, is left to pay its own substantial legal bills.

Speaking after the case, Supermac’s founder Pat McDonagh voiced his profound frustration. “A lot of time and money goes into defending these claims, including preparing legal documents, looking through CCTV, engaging with insurance companies and solicitors, but then they can be withdrawn at the last minute,” he said. “We incur huge solicitors’ costs in defending something like this, yet the plaintiffs walk away without paying anything. It’s absolutely ridiculous.”

Mr McDonagh estimated his company’s costs in this single case could be up to €20,000. “What annoys me is the amount of time our staff have to waste on these claims. We’re out of pocket because of what’s happened,” he continued. “He put up the wet-floor sign himself and yet said we hadn’t put up any signs.” The businessman argued that this case is symptomatic of a wider problem impacting Irish businesses, contributing to rising operational costs and, in some cases, closures. “Even though there has been work done on this in recent years, the Government needs to do more to protect businesses because it’s part of the reason businesses are closing down all around the country.”