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?

Searson v Brioland Ltd, Court of Appeal, 24 January 2005

28 January 2005
The issues

Occupier’s Liability – Tripping Injury

The facts

The Claimant attended a wedding at the Defendant’s hotel. When she tried to leave she went through a doorway with a raised threshold. The threshold was approximately 3cm. She failed to see it, tripped, fell over and was seriously injured. The Judge found for the Claimant on the basis that there was no warning of the raised threshold and that she had been acting perfectly reasonably at the time of her accident.

The Defendant appealed. The Judge had not erred in his decision. It was one thing to expect a step up when entering a doorway but another thing to find a doorway which had a raised threshold. She may well have had her mind on other things whilst she was leaving the premises. The lack of any previous report or trip was not relevant.

Appeal dismissed.

The decision

A case which appears to stand out from the more robust guidance given by the Court of Appeal in Beaton v Devon County Council and Kiopasha. We hope to provide a fuller report of this case shortly.

Comments

The Defendant relied on the fact that one million people had passed across the sill without being injured. A witness for the Defendant had given an account of his standing by the doorway for a morning watching people coming out when no-one fell over. This evidence was described as worthless because the fact that there had been no hazard on that particular occasion did not prove or disprove anything.

The fact that no-one had been injured, the Court of Appeal went on to say, went only a very modest way to establish that the object was not hazardous. The Court also noted that no authority other than Palmer v Marks and Spencer had been quoted to them. It is disappointing that the Court of Appeal were not referred to in its own previous decision in Beaton v Devon County Council which they might have found of help on the point relating to absence of previous accidents.

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.

View

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.

View

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.

View

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.

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