Allen v. London Borough of Barnet

Negligence, breach of duty

Allen v. London Borough of Barnet

Facts

Mrs A a teacher at Henrietta Barnet School in Hampstead Garden Suburb, slipped and broke her left leg in a corridor between two blocks of classrooms.
Mrs A sought damages from the LEA, the London Borough of Barnet, negligence and breach of duty under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957.
After hearing evidence, which included the evidence of two expert witnesses, His Honour Judge Barry Green QC in October 1996 gave judgment for the plaintiff for £14,000 general damages with interest and, with the agreement of the parties, ordered that the issues of special damage and damages for future loss and loss of congenial employment be adjourned to a date to be fixed.
The defendants the London Borough of Barnet appealed against the finding on liability.

The Decision

Mrs A a teacher at Henrietta Barnet School in Hampstead Garden Suburb, slipped and broke her left leg in a corridor between two blocks of classrooms.
Mrs A sought damages from the LEA, the London Borough of Barnet, negligence and breach of duty under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957.
After hearing evidence, which included the evidence of two expert witnesses, His Honour Judge Barry Green QC in October 1996 gave judgment for the plaintiff for £14,000 general damages with interest and, with the agreement of the parties, ordered that the issues of special damage and
damages for future loss and loss of congenial employment be adjourned to a date to be fixed.
The defendants the London Borough of Barnet appealed against the finding on liability.

In summing up, Lord Justice Beldam said,
“The question for the judge was whether in the circumstances the defendant authority had taken reasonable care to see that pupils and staff would not be exposed to an unnecessary risk of injury from slipping in the area of the corridor between the two doors, one leading from the courtyard and the other leading to the
street. The judge decided that the defendant authority had not taken the precaution of providing a mat to absorb water which could be carried into the corridor from the courtyard. It was a simple and, some might think, obvious
precaution, but would it have been effective to prevent the plaintiff's accident? That was the question which was addressed by each side in the expert evidence which they put before the judge. Mr Clement, for the plaintiff, a practitioner in safety, placed reliance on guidance given in a leaflet published by the Health and Safety Executive called "Watch Your Step" and on his experience, stating that wooden blocks treated in the way in which these wooden blocks had been treated and with moisture upon them were more slippery than they otherwise would be and that the presence of the mat would have improved the safety. Accordingly, it seems to me the judge was entitled in this case to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had been exposed to an unnecessary risk of slipping in this corridor, and for those reasons I ... would dismiss the appeal.”
Appeal dismissed

Notes

Mr Brookes was further entitled to interest from the date of the judgment from September 2004 until payment was made.
Measurement and evaluation of human exposure to vibration transmitted to the hand BSI BS 6842:1987. (HSG88 'Hand-Arm Vibration', Health & Safety Executive 1994)

Date 1997
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Act, Regulation or Reference - Occupiers Liability Act 1957