Earlier this year the courts gave useful guidance on the application of the Defective Premises Act 1972.
The Court of Appeal has turned its attention this month to the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 in Edwards v London Borough of Sutton (2016).
The Claimant was pushing his bike over a small ornamental bridge in a park owned by the Defendant when he lost his balance. The bridge was humped, with low parapet sides and he fell, suffering a spinal injury. The claim succeeded albeit with a 40% reduction for contributory negligence. The Defendant appealed.
The Claimant argued that the Defendant should have provided side protection barriers to the bridge. Alternatively, they failed to warn visitors of the dangers posed by the bridge. In reply the Defendant argued that the bridge had been there for some time, the state and construction of the bridge were obvious and there was no history of any previous accidents.
Several issues were considered:
Is there a Duty to act?
Was there a foreseeable risk of injury? Objectively, the risk was small. The degree of risk is central to the assessment of what reasonably should be expected of the occupier.
Is there a Duty to Warn?
Risk Assessments
We can only repeat and endorse the sensible summary given by McCombe LJ in his lead judgement…….
'not every accident (even if it has serious consequences) has to have been the fault of another; and an occupier is not an insurer against injuries sustained on his premises'
A welcome dose of common sense for all occupiers.
We produce a range of insights and publications to help keep our clients up-to-date with legal and sector developments.
Sign up