Slips and trips

Above: Sandeep Cheema

Under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957, an occupier is someone who has a sufficient degree of control over premises. The occupier must see that all visitors are reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which they are invited or permitted to be there.

This means that an occupier must take active steps to keep the property, whether private or public, safe. It is not enough to say “I didn’t know about the wet floor”.

A common cause
Accidents may arise as a result of a defect in the property itself, because of an activity being carried out on it or due to a spillage on the floor. Stairs are a common cause of accidents, whether they are improperly fitted or because of the inadequate provision of handrails.

It is not compulsory for occupiers to have insurance that covers accident claims, unlike employers for workplace accidents. Insurance may be public liability insurance if the accident occurred in a shop, or household contents insurance for a private home.

For a claim to be successful under the Act, the claimant will need to show that the injury sustained was foreseeable. The claimant will need to show injury occurred because the occupier failed to fix, remove or alert the claimant of a potential danger.

Example 1

Mrs X attends her local supermarket to carry out her weekly shopping. She proceeds along the supermarket aisles and then over to the salad counter, which operates a self-service system. As she approaches the salad counter, she slips and injures herself. Following her injury, it becomes apparent that she slipped on some salad which has been spilt onto the floor.

Under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957, the occupier of the supermarket may be held liable. In establishing liability, one will have to look to see whether salad on the supermarket floor posed a foreseeable risk to injury.

It is not compulsory for occupiers to have insurance that covers accident claims

It could be argued that the risk was foreseeable; spillages around the salad bar are going to be a likely occurrence, as the counter operated a self-service system. Therefore, any spillages would fall on flooring which customers pass through. In addition to this, the area where Mrs X slipped did not have any signs in place alerting customers of potential damagers or the presence of salad on the floor.

That said, you should not be the author of your own misfortune. The Court when reviewing liability will apply a certain amount of commonsense to each situation.

Example 2

Mrs Y works for Cool Cats as a secretary. Cool Cats has advised employees that, until further notice, no employee is permitted into the stationery cupboard, as the shelving units are not secure. They have taped the room with yellow and black hazard tape and placed a sign reading NO ENTRY.

Mrs Y, aware of the above, enters the room and subsequently a shelving unit falls onto her, causing injury. In this case, the Courts may consider the employers are not liable for Mrs Y’s accident as she deliberately placed herself in danger knowing it was not safe to enter the stationery cupboard.

The duty of care is specific to each individual. Naturally, the duty of care imposed upon a mature and able adult will differ from that of a child of, say, five years. Accidents to children may be more likely than to adults and an occupier must allow for the fact that they may not be as careful as an adult. Therefore, a school will have particular obligations. The duty also extends to visitors, such as workmen and firefighters. Slips and trips as well as lifting injuries represent most of the claims for personal injuries brought by the rescue services.

Responsibility
A landlord who is an occupier will have this responsibility, but under the Defective Premises Act 1972, where he has an obligation for maintenance and repair, his duty extends to all persons who might reasonably be affected by defects to ensure that the premises are reasonably safe

In addition, The Occupiers Liability Act 1984 imposes a duty of care upon the owner of premises, not only in relation to lawful but also unlawful visitors, e.g. trespassers. The duty of care is limited, but occupiers are still expected to take reasonable steps to protect unlawful visitors from a known damager or, dangers, which the occupier should know of.

So make sure you leave no hazards for burglars to trip over!

Profile

Sandeep Cheema graduated from the University of East London in 2003 with a degree in Law with Sociology. She joined the personal injury department of a large London law firm and has continued to work as a Personal Injury Paralegal.

Sandeep, a member of the Whitehead Monckton team, now hopes to continue her career progression from Paralegal to Legal Executive through training with the Institute of Legal Executives.