Miss Nikola Jayne Williams v Shropshire Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Lambert |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 4074 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: D64YJ60 |
| Date | 20 December 2018 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
[2018] EWHC 4074 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT REGISTRY
Mrs Justice Lambert
Case No: D64YJ60
Appeal No: BM80100A
Mr Andrew Lyons (instructed by Wace Morgan Limited) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Ms E Zeb (instructed by Browne Jacobson) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
This is an appeal from the Order of HHJ Rawlings (“the judge”) of 30 May 2018 by which judgment was entered for the respondent in her action for damages for personal injury arising from her fall at Minsterley Primary School on 19 September 2016. The matter comes before me for the hearing of the appeal following the grant of permission by Mr Justice Martin Spencer.
I can set out the circumstances of the respondent's accident shortly. In September 2016, the respondent's son started at the Minsterley Primary School. The day of the accident was only the second occasion upon which the respondent had visited the school. As she left the building via the main doors, which swung outwards, she did not notice that she was on the tread of a low step down onto the playground area, situated just beyond the doors. The middle of her left foot landed on the edge of the step, her left foot twisted, and she fell suffering a serious leg injury. At trial, it was common ground that the step was slanting: the left-hand side was one inch above the level of the playground and at the right side around three inches above the level of the playground. There was no warning to those leaving the building that there was a step just beyond the swing doors.
The issues before the judge were whether the appellant was in breach of the common duty of care imposed by section 2 of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 and, if so, whether that breach was a substantial cause of the fall. The third issue was whether respondent contributed to the accident by wearing flip flop style sandals.
The hearing before the judge lasted one day during which he heard evidence from six witnesses. His judgment was ex tempore.
The judge set out his findings following his review of photographs of the step and the area around the step. He noted that there was a difference in the colour of the stone of the step and the tarmac playground and a difference in the stone colour of the nosing of the step and the main tread of the step. He was not satisfied, however, that those colour differences made it obvious to those leaving the building that either a step was present, or that there was a variation in step height. He found that whilst the step would be reasonably obvious to those approaching the main entrance from the playground, it would not have been obvious to those leaving the building through the outward swinging doors. He found additionally that entrance was used by adults and children moving in and out of the area, that the step might be obstructed by children playing on the step and that those leaving via the main doors might be distracted from the presence of the step by children playing. He referred to the evidence which had been called by the appellant to the effect that, so far as the appellant was able to say, in the years before the respondent's accident, there had been no complaints concerning the step. The judge recorded however that he had not attached much weight to the absence of complaints, given his finding that the step would not be obvious to those leaving the building.
The judge concluded, in summary, that the step was not reasonably obvious and not reasonably safe and therefore posed a foreseeable risk of injury. He noted that the outward swinging doors may have concealed the step; that the step may become obstructed by children and adults going in and out of the building and that those coming out of the building may have been distracted by children in the playground. He found that it would have been relatively inexpensive to reduce or eliminate the risk of tripping or falling by painting the step in a bright colour and so making its existence much clearer. He also concluded that the presence of the step was a substantial cause of the respondent's fall and that she was not contributorily negligent by reason of her wearing flip flop type sandals.
Although set out in a variety of different ways, there were, in effect, three substantive grounds of appeal. First, that in approaching the question of breach of the common duty of care, the judge had applied too high a standard of care and that his approach was tantamount to imposing an absolute duty on the appellant in respect of the step; second, that the judge's...
To continue reading
Request your trial