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?

Whittle v Weymouth Portland Borough Council, Bournemouth County Court

11 December 2002
The issues

Occupiers Liability Act – Dock Regulations 1988 – slipping.

The facts

The Claimant and his wife arrived at about midnight at the arrivals hall in Weymouth having disembarked from the Condor Ferry on which they had travelled from the Channel Islands. The Claimant alleged that he fell as a result of a wet floor in the arrival hall. Carpet was laid in a covered passage along which the Claimant had to walk which took him to the uncarpeted arrivals hall. Since the accident the arrivals hall has also been carpeted. At the time the arrivals hall was painted and repainted every year with non-slip paint. The accident report form referred to the cause of the accident as being a “wet floor”. The Claimant relied on the common duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act and under Regulation 7 of the Dock Regulations requiring a mandatory duty to provide and maintain a safe means of access to every part of dock premises and to ensure that all floors, decks, surfaces, stairs, steps, passages and gangways in dock premises should be kept free from substances likely to cause a person to slip or fall.

The decision

(i) Following Laverton v Kiapasha the Court had to be aware against imposing “a near strict liability” under the Occupiers Liability Act.

(ii) On the evidence the floor was not damp or wet when the Claimant fell. The accident report form had been filled in on the basis of the Claimant’s own information. It was not independent evidence in support of the Claimant.

(iii) Even if the floor had been wet, the presence of non-slip paint and the extent of carpet in the passage leading to the hall amounted to reasonable precautions in the circumstances. Claim dismissed.


For further information, please contact Hamish McConachie on hcm@vpinsurance.net

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