Wheat v E. Lacon & Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SELLERS,LORD JUSTICE HARMAN,LORD JUSTICE DIPLOCK |
| Judgment Date | 13 April 1965 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1965] EWCA Civ J0413-1 |
| Date | 13 April 1965 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
[1965] EWCA Civ J0413-1
Lord Justice Sellers
Lord Justice Harman and
Lord Justice Diplock
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
(From: Mr. Justice Winn — Norwich)
Mr. JOHN HAYMAN (instructed by Messrs. Jaques & Co., Agents for Messrs. R.A. Young & Pearce, Nottingham) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Plaintiff).
Mr. KENNETH JUPP (instructed by Messrs. William Easton & Sons, Agents for Messrs. Mills & Reeve, Norwich) appeared on behalf of the Respondents (First Defendants).
Before I read my judgment, in order to relieve any suspense or anxiety of the plaintiff, should she be present, I will say now that the appeal will be dismissed, although my judgment will be to the contrary effect.
This litigation arises out of a sad and sudden fatality. The known facts are short and simple but the inferences and conclusions from them have led to differences of opinion and it is with deference that I express my views where they conflict with those of my brethren and of Mr. Justice Winn (as he then was) from whose judgment this appeal comes.
On the 4th September, 1958, in the course of a week's holiday at Great Yarmouth the plaintiff's husband fell down the last few stairs of a staircase at the Golfers Arms Hotel and by a misfortune, unusual in such a fall, fell on his head in such a manner that he was killed. The Golfers Arms Hotel is situated in North Denes Road. The premises are owned by the defendants Laocn & Co. Ltd. who are brewers and the premises are licensed as, and would commonly be called, a public house. The ground floor is laid out with bars in a manner suitable for a licensed public house and it is there that the brewers trade and sell a variety of drinks.
The premises are not let to a tenant who trades for his own profit. Here, in distinction from that way of transacting business, the brewers themselves trade directly through a manager and the troublesome questions in this case arise from that circumstance and depend upon the brewers' relationship to the premises and to those who resort thereto.
The actual sale of drink and provision for its sale and consumption is confined to the ground floor to which the public has access during opening hours through a central entrance. A little to the north of that entrance is another entrance leading into the Gentlemen's Toilet on the ground floor and beyond that an entrance marked "Private" gives access to a staircase marked "A" which leads to the first floor.
At the head of the stairs on the first floor is a landing with a kitchen on the left-hand side and two steps marked "B" lead to accommodation of six bedrooms, two sitting rooms and a bathroom. At the back, on the westerly side of the premises, there is a staircase marked "C" leading up to accommodation of which neither the extent nor use, if any, has been specified and at the opposite end to that, at the north-west corner, there is a staircase marked "D" which leads down to a small hall or vestibule from which a glasa panelled door gives access to a yard. From the yard there is a gateway into a street. This is the staircase which the deceased was using when he fell fatally. If the brewers were not in occupation of it then it matters not for the purposes of this appeal what was the condition of that staircase. But for the reasons I shall give shortly I am in agreement with the learned judge that the brewers were in occupation of the staircase and it is convenient to deal with the stailcase first for on its condition depends the answer to the first problem in the case, how did the deceased come to fall. Without an acceptable affirmative finding of the cause of the fall it is not possible to commence consideration of legal liability. I have found this issue most difficult. People of all ages and differing types do fall down stairs and elsewhere on occasions in circumstances where there is nothing to account for the fall except a stumble which may befall anyone. The judgment makes a finding in favour of the plaintiff. It holds that the fall was caused by an unusual feature in the staircase, a handrail terminating before the bottom of the stairs, which made it a danger when not properly lighted; that it was getting dark when the deceased man went down the stairs and the electric light provided at the top of the stairs was not on as there was no bulb in the holder. The stairs were steep and only 2 ft. 7 ins. wide and were carpeted. There were no signs of marks on the walls or stairs of any fall higher up the stairs than the place where the handrail, let into the wall on the left going down, terminated. There were no marks on the deceased man's body and therefore adirect fall was indicated. If reliance was being placed, in the dark, on the handrail its termination might have been regarded by the deceased as the foot of the stairs, particularly as there is a recess in the wall of over 2 inches at that point and, if so, it is an unusual feature with which he would be suddenly confronted and the learned judge held it to be the probable cause of the fall. If a jury had so found I doubt if the finding could have been disturbed and I am not prepared to say that the learned judge's conclusion was wrong.
The finding involves that the staircase was a danger unless adequately lit. The staircase was apparently constructed as a safety staircase, a means of escape in the event of fire or similar emergency. It was a flight of some 15 steps. It was steep but the treads and rises were within recognised limits and the only danger was the partial handrail ending where the wall on that side receded about three stairs from the bottom. The learned judge has accepted that the ending of the handrail would have been apparent when the staircase was lit either by daylight or artificially and in those circumstances would not have been a danger. If there is danger in the dark then this accident may have served some purpose whatever its immediate result. An escape staircase to be used in an emergency such as fire would probably be used in the dark and at a time when people using it might be alarmed and not cautious. Fire tends to extinguish electric light and to create smoke which takes away visibility. One fall might occasion another and if many people were descending together in an emergency there could be a tragic pile-up such as was experienced in the last war. The architect had not appreciated the danger; indeed, I think, he did not recognise it at the trial. There was no provision for lighting at the foot: of the stairs and the light at the top of the flight would be behind anyone descending. It was said to be adequate. I would uphold the learned judge's finding of the danger of the staircase but as such use as would be made of it (apart from emergency) might occur from time to tine, as probably here, in a period ofdaybreak or twilight or even on gloomy mornings in conditions when some would use artificial light and some would not, it should in my view be held to be dangerous because it might be used without being adequately lighted.
I have indicated the position of the staircase in question. It descends from the first floor to the yard. At the time of the accident the whole of the first floor was in use in these circumstances. By an agreement of 3rd April, 1956, the brewers appointed Mr. Richardson as their manager "of the Public House called The Golfers Arms" and by clause 7 thereof "The Manager shall and may so long as he shall continue in the service of the Employers occupy the same public house without paying rent, rates or taxes…. Such occupation shall not nor shall anything herein contained create any tenancy as between the parties hereto or give the Manager any estate or interest in the premises".
The manager and his wife used the kitchen and conveniences and a sitting room marked "Private" and bedroom No. 3 adjacent to it. They had furniture in the other rooms and the brewers had given Mrs. Richardson permission to take in visitors during the holiday season for her own benefit. This was a privilege granted by the brewers who expressly stated that they would make no charge for the use of the accommodation, lighting or heating for the purposes of summer lettings but at the same time gave warning that if managers and wives neglected their primary task of running the licensed premises in order to look after their summer guests then the privilege would be withdrawn. Mrs. Richardson does not seem to have had any contract for service with the brewers but, it may be, the understanding with Mr. Richardson was that his wife would help.
It was in pursuance of this privilege that Mrs. Richardson agreed to take the plaintiff's party as guests. The plaintiff and her husband arrived on the 30th August together with a young daughter and the plaintiff's parents. Mr. and Mrs Wheat occupied bedroom No. 2 and it was soon after they had returnedfrom an outing on the evening of the 4th September that Mr. Wheatset off from there to obtain some soft drinks. In order to avoid, as he thought, going out into the street he decided to take this back staircase "D". There was nothing to indicate that it was private or out of bounds. It was used from time to time and no case was made that the deceased man had no right to be there. The time was about 9 p.m. and the outside light was fading. It would have been prudent to have pat on the lights on the landing but there was no evidence that Mrs. Richardson had taken any steps to light the passages. It may be that Mr. Wheat before descending did press the electric switches. There were two at the head of the stairs by the bedroom on the right. Probably a light on the landing opposite the bedroom was put on then, for it was found lit soon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whonder (Sydney) v Courts Jamaica Ltd
...would have been liable if the obstruction had been a single carton 9" high. In this case the step down was 6 – 8". 43 The case of Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd (1966) AC 552 is also distinguishable from the instant case and in my opinion does not assist the defendant. 44 ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDEN......
-
Emanuel (H. & N.) Ltd v Greater London Council
... ... CHT, 1966 2 Q. B. 425 , and Wheat v. E. Lacon & Co. Ltd ., 1966 A. C. 552 ... Those cases show that the word "occupier" has a ... ...
-
See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd
... ... Lloyd's Rep 163 (folld) Von Rocks, The [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 198 (folld) Wheat v ELacon & Co Ltd [1966] AC 552 (folld) Application of English Law Act (Cap 7 A, ... in Davis is preceded by Morris J's decision in Buckland v Guildford Gas Light and Coke Company [1949] 1 KB 410 (‘ Buckland ’) ... Buckland is authority for the proposition that a ... ...
-
Amus bin Pangkong v Jurong Shipyard Limited and Another
... ... & Engineering Co Ltd adopted the following passage from the judgment of Lord Denning in Wheat v E Lacon and Co Ltd [1966] AC 552 at p 578 : ... wherever a person has a ... ...