Fary Louise Stone (the Widow and Administratrix of the Estate of Arnold Johan Stone deceased) v John Joseph Taffe and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE MEGAW,LORD JUSTICE STEPHENSON,SIR SEYMOUR KARMINSKI |
| Judgment Date | 10 July 1974 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1974] EWCA Civ J0710-6 |
| Date | 10 July 1974 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[1974] EWCA Civ J0710-6
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
(Civil Division)
(From: Mr. Justice Reeve — Birmingham)
Lord Justice Megaw
Lord Justice Stephenson and
Sir Seymour Karminski
Mr. PHILIP COX, Q.C. and Mr. RICHARD CURTIS (instructed by Messrs. Pattinson & Brewer, Agents for Messrs. Stanley A. Coleman & Hill, Birmingham) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Plaintiff).
Mr. JAMES FOX-ANDREWS, Q.C. and Mr, MICHAEL WRIGHT, Q.C. (instructed by Messrs. Barlow, Lyde & Gilbert, Agents for Messrs. Duggans, Birmingham) appeared on behalf of the Respondents (Second Defendants).
I will ask Lord Justice Stephenson to deliver the first judgment.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Mrs. Stone, against a judgment of Mr. "Justice Reeve dated 2nd November, 1973. dismissing her action under the Fatal Accidents Acts and the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934, against the second defendants, Mitchells & Butlers Ltd., the well-known brewers. They were the owners of a public house known as The Gate Inn in Saltley, which had been managed for them under a service agreement by one Taffe, the first defendant, as the licensee since February, 1969. The plaintiff's husband fell down an unlighted staircase at the public house in the small hours of the morning of the 8th February, 1970, and died on the 21st February, 1970, from head injuries which he received in that fall. The plaintiff signed judgment against Taffe in default of appearance. By the time the action was tried he had disappeared without trace and she wants judgment against the brewers for damages for her husband's death which have been agreed at £16,000, The question raised by this appeal is whether the brewers are liable to pay to her all or any part of those damages.
There is no serious dispute of fact about the way in which Mr. Stone, a man of 37, came to be at the public house or about the state of the staircase where he fell. He had been a member of the local Lodge of the Royal and Antediluvian Order of Buffaloes, known as the Buffs, for some years and was also a member of the committee. Taffe was also a Buff and the Buffs met regularly at the public house at mid-day on Sundays. The committee resolved to have a social gathering in the club room on the first floor there on the evening of the 7th February, 1970, attended by the Buffs, prospective Buffs and their ladies. Those attending this ladies night began to congregate in the club room soon after 8 p.m. There was music, there was dancing, there was bingo and a raffle, and foodand drink, including alcoholic drink, served by Taffe and his wife from a makeshift bar in the club room. The permitted hours for serving alcoholic beverages expired at 10,30 p.m. and no extension beyond that hour had been applied for or granted, nor was there a licence for music, singing or dancing in the club room. It was not until 1 a.m. or a little later that Mr. and Mrs. Stone started to leave.
They had to leave by a staircase which was a part of the public house to which the public was admitted. It ran from a landing outside the club room. Leaving the club room you would turn right to descend the stairs. On reaching the botton: you could turn left into the smoke room or right along a passage leading to a street door. The stairs were fairly steep and the staircase rather narrow, running between solid walls only 2 ft. 5 ins. apart. There were 18 or 19 stairs, the treads all 9 inches wide, the risers all 81/4 inches high. Down the whole length of the left-hand wall as you descended was a handrail. The stairs were lit by a 60-watt electric bulb suspended above the top step; the only switch which operated that lignt was insirie the smoke room. There was another electric bulb suspended above the passage leading to the street door.
There was nothing wrong with the stairs themselves or the handrail and there was no evidence that anyone had ever fallen down them on that night or any other occasion. There was evidence that they were illuminated by the light over the top step when the City Waiter of the Lodge, a Mr. Sturgess, descended them to the smoke room and returned up them carrying a tray laden with full pint glasses of draught beer some time before 10.30. But when the first guests came to leave shortly after midnight, a sister of Mr. Stone named Mrs. Davies and her husband, that light was extinguished. The light from the onen door of the club room enabled them to see the top of the stairs, but when that shut behind them they had to descend in total darkness except for a very small amount of lightbehind the decorated glass panels of the smoke room door at the bottom. When they got to the bottom Taffe came out of the smoke room and guided them out along the passage, nobody switching on the top light or asking for it to be switched on.
About an hour later when the party was finally breaking up, Mr. and Mrs. Stone left the club room with Mrs. Doughty, the wife of the committee's secretary. The conditions of light were the same as for Mr. and Mrs. Davies. Mrs. Doughty tried unsuccessfully to find a switch to turn on the light. They decided to descend, Mrs. Doughty feeling with her hand the wall on her right, Mrs. Stone close behind holding the handrail on her left, and Mr. Stone bringing up the rear after telling his wife "Hold on to the rail and you will be all right" When they had successfully negotiated at least one half of the flight Mr. Stone fell headlong past the two ladies, hit his head against the wall opposite the foot of the stairs and sustained injuries from which he died without regaining consciousness.
The learned judge found that the club room and the stairs were in the sole occupation of the brewers through Taffe their servant, that Taffe was acting wholly outside the scope of his employment in allowing the meeting of the Buffs to continue after closing time and therefore in not leaving the stairs illuminated, but that at the time of the accident Mr. Stone was still a person who was invited or permitted to be on the premises by the brewers and that they therefore still owed him as a visitor the duty of common care imposed on them by the Occupiers' Liability Act, 1957. He further found that there was no satisfactory evidence as to Mr. Stone's "state of mind in regard to his knowledge of the licensing laws (whether or not qualified by an extension) applicable to his continued occupation of the club room, and no evidence that what he had had to drink had anything to do with his fall, "the cause of which was a matter of pure conjecture", though the judge was satisfied that alcoholic drinks continued to be served for a considerabletime after hours and perhaps as late as 1 a.m. As has been indicated, he found that the stairs were in a proper state of repair and the handrail was adequate, hut he also found that unlit they were dangerous. He held that Taffe was responsible for ensuring that they did not constitute a danger but the brewers were not vicariously responsible for his act or default in not operating the light switch. Had the accident been caused by the structure of the stairs or their state of disrepair constituting a danger he would have held the brewers liable as occupiers to the plaintiff for some of the damages she claimed. If he had found the brewers liable he would have held Mr. Stone 50 per cent, to blame.
It being conceded that on the facts the brewers were not in joint occupation with Taffe of the relevant parts of these premises (as they were in Wheat v. E. Lacon & Co. Ltd., 1966 Appeal Cases 552), the brewers were the occupier of them in control of them through their manager Taffe. It is not disputed that by Taffe they gave (or are to be treated as giving) to Mr. Stone an invitation or permission to enter and use the premises before 10.30 pm. In consequence they owed him as a visitor a duty in respect of dangers due to the state of the premises, or to things done or omitted to be done on them, which is regulated by section 2 of the 1957 Act: see section 1. And that duty is the "common duty of care", namely "to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose for which he is invited or permitted bythe occupier to be there": see section 2 (2). The first question therefore is whether Mr. Stone, a visitor lawfully there in response to the brewers' invitation, had before he fell ceased to be a visitor (or their visitor) and had become a trespasser.
In my judgment the judge was right to answer that he was still their visitor and they still owed him their statutory duty. It may be accepted that if a director of the brewers had known that thisparty was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adele Shtern v Villa Mora Cottages Ltd and Another
...was not properly insulated. 40 In addition to those authorities that I have already indicated, Miss Davis relied on Stone v Taffe et al [1974] 1 WLR 1575, Fisher v C.H.T. Ltd and others (No. 2) [1966] 2 QB 475 and Indermaur v Dames [1866] LR 1 C.P. 274 and I will come in due course to a con......
-
O'Keeffe v Irish Motor Inns
...which he came and to withdraw from the premises, he becomes at most a licensee thereafter." (emphasis added by me). 42 Stone v. Taafe (1974) 3 All E.R. 1016 is the latest case on the matter which I have been able to find. I do not think that it states any new principle: it is an application......
-
Anthonette Perrier v Mcmasters’ Meat Mart Ltd
...so much whether he has been invited to stray but whether there was anything to delimit the area of invitation. (See Stone v. Taffe [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1575 at 42 In respect of the common law, the court may take into consideration, matters relevant under the common law in determining whether an......
-
Lee Kwong Fai v Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Co Ltd
...1 K,I.R. 438 (C.A.) (7) [1967] C.L.Y. 2664 (8) [1968] 5 K.I.R. 456 (C.A.) (9) [1970] 2 Lloyds Reports 439 (10) [1969] 2 Q.B. 480 (11) [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1575 (12) [1966] 2 Q.B 475 (13) At page 482 ...
-
Table of Cases
...5.20 Stockman v First Choice Flights and Holidays Limited, 28 April 2006 (unreported), Eastbourne Cty Ct 5.188–5.189, 6.2 Stone v Taffe [1974] 1 WLR 1575, [1974] 3 All ER 1016, 118 SJ 863, CA 8.28 Stott v Thomas Cook Tour Operators Limited [2014] UKSC 15, [2014] AC 1347, [2014] 2 WLR 521, [......
-
Hotels
...defences of contributory negligence and volenti non fit injuria . 49 Perry v Butlins Holiday World [1998] Ed CR 39. 50 Stone v Taffe [1974] 1 WLR 1575. 51 Davies v Tenby Corporation [1974] 2 Lloyd’s LR 469. 52 Appleton v Cunard [1969] 1 Lloyd’s LR 150. 53 C Walton (ed) (2009) Charlesworth &......
-
Some reflections on vicarious liability and dishonest employees
...as being an embodiment of 72 CPR v Lockhart [1942] AC 591 at 599-600; Ilkiw v Samuels [1963] 1 WLR 991 at 998, 1004; Stone v Taffe [1974] 1 WLR 1575; Plumb v Cobden Flour Mills Ltd [1914] AC 62 at 67; LCC v Cattermoles (Garages) Ltd [1953] 1 WLR 997 at 1002; KAY v ITW Ltd (n 65) at 158. 73 ......