Injury to lawful visitor — Claim under section 2 of Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 — Whether doorway with sill on exit reasonably safe — Appeal dismissed
The respondent, an 82-year-old woman in good health, attended a wedding reception in the conference centre attached to the appellant’s hotel. On exiting the building, she tripped on a raised sill that formed part of the doorway and fell, injuring herself. She brought a claim against the appellant under section 2 of the Occupier’s Liability Act 1957.
There was evidence that the sill formed a step of around 2.8cm in height and was painted white. The respondent accepted that, had she looked, it would have been clearly visible, but she said that she was not looking and would not have expected to find it there. She argued that one might expect to find a step up on the way into a building, but not on the way out, and that the appellant should have removed it or erected a warning sign. The judge accepted that argument and allowed the claim.
On appeal, the appellant argued that there was no sound evidential basis for the judge’s finding that the premises were not reasonably safe. She contended that the judge had erred in his judgment, by finding that there had been no reason to expect a sill and no reason why the respondent would have seen it. She further contended that he had given insufficient weight to the absence of previous accidents and to the door’s compliance with building regulations.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
The question of whether the premises were reasonably safe was a simple one for the judge to decide, and turned on his good judgment in applying the law to the facts. For a challenge to succeed, it was necessary to show that the judge had erred in law in his approach to those facts. In the present case, the judge had been entitled to find that a person exiting a building would not expect to find a raised step. The situation was different from that of entering a building, where a sill might be expected. Although the sill was painted white and was clearly visible, this was not relevant unless the respondent should have been looking, and the judge had been entitled to find that there was no reason why she would have been. The absence of previous accidents did not prove or disprove anything. Such matters could go only a small way towards showing that something was not dangerous; there was no evidence pertaining to how many other people had tripped without falling or being hurt. It was trite law that conformity with relevant regulations, such as building regulations, did not exclude common law negligence. The judge had not erred in law.
Lee Evans (instructed by Berrymans Lace Mawer, of Southampton) appeared for the appellant; James Counsell (instructed by Ian Newbery & Co, of Poole) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
