The Blip Blop Blog (Team Entity)

In Sayers v Harlow UDC (1958) the plaintiff used one of the public toilets provided by the defendants. When she tried to leave the cubicle, she realized that the door was without a knob or a handle or the knob or the handle had become undone. She tried fidgeting with the door and when that was unsuccessful she tried climbing out the window by standing on a toilet roll holder which gave way and the plaintiff was injured as a result. The plaintiff sued. The court held that it was reasonable to expect that doors in public toilets would open both ways and the means to open the doors would always be readily available. It was also foreseeable that if someone was trapped in a public toilet they’d try, in some way or other, to get out and the longer a person is stuck or trapped in the toilet the more frantic or desperate he or she would become. The plaintiff was successful and the council was held to be liable. The plaintiff’s damages were however reduced because the court found tha

S.1(1) of the (Law Reform) Contributory Negligence Act gives us the scope of contributory negligence as defined by law – Where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, a claim in respect of that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering the damage, but the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant’s share in the responsibility for the damage: Provided that— (a) this subsection shall not operate to defeat any defense arising under a contract; (b) where any contract or enactment providing for the limitation of liability is applicable to the claim, the amount of damages recoverable by the claimant by virtue of this subsection shall not exceed the maximum limit so applicable. Contributory negligence is a defense i.e. when a defendant is adjudged to be negligent for

In McGhee v National Coal Board (1972) the plaintiff worked in the defendants’ brick factory and though in the initial stages he was exposed to only small quantities of dust he was later asked to work in brick kilns and was exposed to hot abrasive dust. The defendants did not have adequate washing facilities available and the plaintiff had to cycle home, after at least eight hours of toiling in the brick kilns, to have a wash. As a result, the plaintiff contracted dermatitis and he sued. The court held that the defendants had breached their duty by failing to provide adequate washing and cleaning facilities and it does not matter that there may have been other factors that could have or may have impacted the onset of the illness. The prime factor or the major factor that had caused the plaintiff’s illness was the defendants negligence and therefore the defendants were liable. In Holtby v Brigham & Cowan (2000) the plaintiff worked as a marine fitter and during the cour