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

Lovett v Arthur Anderson & Co, Court of Appeal, 5 November 2003

17 November 2003
The issues

Trip – slip – step behind door.

The facts

The Claimant claimed against her employer after she fell down a 6-inch step. The step was immediately behind a door. She had been told by her employer to go and get some software from the library. She was told to turn left after coming out of the lift on the 5th floor. She opened the door to a room marked “Plant Room” thinking it was the room she had been told to go to. She stepped forward to look for the light switch when she fell down the 6-inch step. Rooms in the same position on other floors did not have this step. The Judge found that the accident had occurred because the Claimant had not been looking where she was going. Had she been doing so, she would or should have seen the step. The cause of the accident was not the directions given to the Claimant or their inadequacy, but the Claimant’s inadequate attention. The Judge, having made a site visit and having heard evidence found that the step would have been obvious as soon as the door was opened.

The Claimant appealed.

The decision

1. The Claimant had made a mistake as to which was the right door to open. The position and condition of the step was not something that the employer should reasonably have foreseen as likely to have caused her harm.

2. The Judge had found that the Claimant should have seen the step. This was a finding of no breach, which the Court would not disturb.

Appeal dismissed

Comments

Arden LJ dissented on the basis that the Claimant was carrying out her employer’s
instructions and that it was foreseeable that she would not give primary consideration to her
own safety.

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