Tort - Occupiers liability cases III
In
Eric Glennie v University Court of the University of Aberdeen (2013) the
plaintiff slipped and fell while he was playing tennis on a court owned by the
defendant. There was a patch of green moss growing on the astro-turf and the
plaintiff slipped when he stepped on it and as a result sustained injuries.
While the defendants admitted that they owed the plaintiff a duty of care, the
court held that the defendants were not liable because there was insufficient
evidence to establish that it was indeed the defendants’ negligence that had
caused the accident. Astroturfs were naturally more slippery than other
surfaces and it was up to the plaintiff to take due care. Furthermore, there
was nothing to indicate that it was the moss that had caused the accident.
In
Fiona Brown v East Lothian Council (2013) the plaintiff hired a hall from the
town council for her dance class (zumba). She normally conducted her classes in
a gymnasium but on this particular occasion the gymnasium was unavailable. The
plaintiff slipped and fell while she was conducting her class and her accident
was caused by the uneven flooring of the hall. The plaintiff sued claiming that
the hall was not a suitable workplace and the council countered by arguing that
the hall was not intended to be used as a workplace and therefore they should
not be held liable or accountable. The plaintiff was unsuccessful.
In
Michael Leonard v The Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority
(2014) the plaintiff’s 12-year-old son was walking together with his family up
a hill and after a certain point decided to walk ahead. He was walking up the
steps at the time and later he was found at the foot of the hill, having fallen
off while he was climbing the hill, and he sustained injuries as a result of
the fall.
His
father brought an action against the park authorities claiming that the steps
that were provided for visitors to walk up the hill weren’t up to acceptable
standards for example they were uneven, built at odd angles, inconsistent and
there were no handrails that visitors could hold on to while climbing the steps
or suitable fencing that could prevent a fall.
In
the previous case (Fiona Brown v East Lothian Council (2013)) the plaintiff was
unable to claim despite being injured in an accident that was caused by uneven
flooring because the hall was not used for the purpose it was intended. Here
the plaintiff’s son was injured and his injury was caused partly or partially
at least by uneven steps but he was using it for the purpose that it was
intended for. Would the defendants be liable in this instance?
It
can be argued on behalf of the council that any visitor ought to take
reasonable care while he or she was climbing up or going down a flight of
stairs or a series of steps. Going back to the decision in Moira Brown v
Lakeland Ltd (2012) the court decided that anyone who uses a flight of stairs
or climbs up or down a series of steps has a responsibility to exercise due
care and caution because the chances were high that if they were careless, an
accident might result from their carelessness.
It
would be entirely different if there was smidge of oil or something on the
steps that had caused the plaintiff to fall as in the case Robinson v The Post
Office (1974) or Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd (1976) but there was no evidence to
indicate that there was some other factor that had caused the accident.
The
court held that there was nothing to suggest that the defendants lack of care
had caused the mishap and that the defendants did not owe the plaintiff a duty
of care. The steps were an ordinary feature that were neither concealed nor
unused and had become a permanent part of the landscape.
Was
there a special duty that was owed to children that would not otherwise be owed
to adults? In Bourne Leisure Ltd v Marsden (2009), the mother while on holiday
in a caravan park was speaking to someone in the next caravan when two of her
children disappeared. The boys had made their way towards a pond that was
fenced off and had somehow managed to climb the fence and make their way to the
pond. One of the boys aged 2½ drowned. The parents sued. The court held that
children could disappear anywhere at any time and the defendants were not
liable. They had to some degree taken adequate preventive measures.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment