0370 270 6000

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


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

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


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.


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