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

Forgotten your password?

Peskett v Portsmouth City Council, Court of Appeal, 2 July 2002

2 July 2002
The issues

Occupiers Liability Act 1957 – tripping – shortcut grass – contributory negligence

The facts

The Claimant tripped on a path outside the Council offices. The Claimant had worked for the Council for 20 years and knew the area very well. She tripped (fracturing her wrist) at a point where a tarmac path intersected at a 90-degree angle, a slabbed path. People were in the habit of taking a shortcut across the angle of the two paths. The grass had been worn away where people walked and a depression made next to the path which amounted to a tripping hazard. The Council argued that there had never been any previous accidents there. On the afternoon of the accident, the Council had laid slabs across the worn grass, making good the trip. The Judge found as a fact that the Council knew of the worn grass, but had done nothing and that this made them liable under the Occupiers Liability Act. He further found that the Claimant had been in a hurry and had not been as careful as she should have done and therefore made a finding of 50% contributory negligence.

The decision

1. The path was heavily used and the shortcut obvious. The Council had done nothing but assume that the risk was minimal to people looking carefully on the ground before they walked.

2. The Court could not take any account of the fact that there had been no previous accidents. The more people walked on the path, the greater the hazard became with erosion and it was inevitable that someone would trip eventually.

3. The Court of Appeal would not interfere with the finding of contributory negligence which was the result of the Judge’s consideration of the evidence before him.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


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