0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Court of Appeal

31 July 2002
The issues

Occupiers liability – Charity Fete – trampoline injury.

The facts

The Claimant was injured at a hospital fundraising fair when using a “splat-wall” (the object being to bounce on a trampoline and stick to a wall by means of velcro). The equipment had been hired and set up by the Second Defendant to the action. The Hospital had paid extra when booking for the Second Defendant to provide staff for the equipment. The Hospital would have the benefit of the Second Defendant’s Public Liability Insurance. In fact, that insurance expired 4 days before the Fair. The Judge at first instance dismissed the claim against the Hospital Trust. The Claimant appealed.

The decision

1. The Hospital was at all times occupier and therefore owed the common duty of care under Section 2(I) of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957.

2. That duty was to take such care as was in all the circumstances reasonable to see that the Claimant would be reasonably safe when using the premises to which he had been invited.

3. That permission extended to the use of the splat wall.

4. The intervention of an independent contractor did not mean that the Hospital owed no duty. It could fulfil that duty if it employed an appropriate competent contractor. If it had not taken appropriate steps to ensure that the contractor was competent, it would have been liable under the Occupiers Liability Act.

5. Those enquiries included enquiry into the insurance position of the contractor, so as to confirm the contractor’s suitability and trustworthiness with regard to the operation of the equipment. The only information the Hospital had obtained had come from the Second Defendant himself. The Hospital asked about the insurance but did not ask to see the Policy. The Judge had found that they had no reason to believe the insurance was not in force. That was as far as the Hospital needed to have gone. It was important to note that the contract with the contractor had made provision for insurance to be in place.

Appeal dismissed.

focus on...

Legal updates

Contingent loss in negligence claims

Contingent loss is relevant to limitation; specifically, the date at which a claimant’s cause of action accrues for the purposes of a claim in the tort of negligence (as many claims against professional advisers are framed).

View

Legal updates

Legal and regulatory monthly update - September 2019

The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.

View

Legal updates

Kuoni referred to the CJEU by Supreme Court for clarification - possible impact on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility claims for sexual abuse and assault

We were hoping to be able to give you some interesting insights following the judgment of X v Kuoni Travel Ltd but that will have to wait for another day.

View

Legal updates

The disappearance of LIBOR

Companies should undertake a comprehensive review and audit to identify those products and legacy contracts that are LIBOR-linked and carry out an in-depth risk assessment of discontinuation. Where possible, companies should look at appointing an individual to oversee the programme.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up