Peter Skomorowskyj v Lincoln Co-Operative Society Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SELLERS,LORD JUSTICE DAVIES,LORD JUSTICE RUSSELL |
| Judgment Date | 19 December 1966 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1966] EWCA Civ J1219-1 |
| Date | 19 December 1966 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
[1966] EWCA Civ J1219-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
(Civil Division)
(From: Mr. Justice Glyn-Jones - Lincoln)
Lord Justice Sellers
Lord Justice Davies and
Lord Justice Russell
The APPELLANT (Mr. P. Skomorowskyj, Plaintiff) appeared in person.
Mr. LEONARD HALPERN (instructed by Messrs. Burton & Co., Lincoln) appeared on behalf of the Respondents (Defendants).
(without calling upon Counsel for the Respondents)
In this case the plaintiff had the advantage of Legal Aid and of counsel appearing for him in a trial before Mr. Justice Glyn-Jones at the Lincoln Assizes. He had met with a nasty accident through having fallen through a hole when he was doing some building work for the defendants; he was on the third floor and he fell to the second floor. The hole, shortly prior to the accident, had been properly covered by a board but it would appear that the plaintiff did something to it to move it. The judge was not able to find precisely how the accident had happened because the hole which was revealed after the plaintiff's fall was too small to go through.
It is one of those cases where a plaintiff has not given sufficiently clear evidence as to how the accident happened really to establish any case at all. But having regard to the fact that the floor was covered, the learned judge in my view came to the only conclusion that he could on the evidence which was before him. This cover was disturbed in some way by the plaintiff and that accounted for his unfortunate accident. Before this Court he has made some suggestion that the board had been put back after his fall, but there is no evidence of that and indeed on the facts before the Court it seems highly improbable. The learned judge, on the evidence before him, could, and this Court on the evidence before us can, do no other than come to the conclusion that this plaintiff's case failed, and the appeal therefore must fail.
I agree.
I also agree.
| (Appeal dismissed) |
To continue reading
Request your trial