In Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell [2016] EWCA 1094 the Court of Appeal has confirmed that the occupier of land is not obliged to keep visitors totally safe from injury caused by tripping up. This reverses the first instance decision and will be a welcome relief to landowners.
The case examined the duty owed under S1 Occupiers Liability Act 1957 (“the Act”) as applied to private roads and pavements. Highways Authorities have a similar duty under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 in relation to publicly maintained roads.
Mr Debell walked through Rochester Cathedral precinct, being private land owned by the church authorities (“the Cathedral”). His route was permitted by the Cathedral. Parking on the roads in the precinct was prohibited, in part by stretching a chain between bollards to prevent vehicular access. Mr Debell had to walk through the narrow gap between one of these bollards and a low wall. The bollard had been damaged (probably by impact from a reversing car) causing the concrete footings to become dislodged. Mr Debell tripped over a small piece of concrete which now protruded above ground by one inch into the gap. He fell and suffered personal injuries for which he was awarded £22,000 damages (after deduction of 20% for contributory negligence).
The basis for this award was that the protruding concrete posed a reasonably foreseeable risk that someone would trip over it and be injured. By doing nothing to remove this danger, the Cathedral was in breach of the Act which requires an occupier of land to take such care as, in all the circumstances, is reasonable to see that their visitors will be reasonably safe for the purposes that they are on the land. Relevant circumstances might be how likely the injury is to occur, the extent of the injury, any systems in place to spot the problem and the likely expense of doing something to prevent injury.
The Cathedral appealed and won. The Court decided that the test had been applied too strictly. It rejected the suggestion that the Act imposes automatic liability on the occupier for every trip that a visitor suffers. In the court’s view, the Act does not oblige the occupier to ensure that all roads and paths on its property are free of defects all the time. Looking at similar cases about claims for tripping on publicly adopted roads/footpaths (in particular Mills v Barnsley MBC 1992 PIQR P291) the Court of Appeal decided that breach of duty is not established just because the risk of injury or accident is reasonably foreseeable (as here). In addition, that risk must be one which, in all the circumstances, it is practical and realistic for the occupier to remedy. Here the risk from the small protrusion of concrete was no more than the risk from normal blemishes in road surfaces, and the Cathedral were not liable for the personal injury suffered by Mr Debell.
Sue Highmore is a property law consultant
