Cockram v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

In assessing whether an employer provided a reasonably safe place and system of work, the court must address a foreseeable risk with a precaution proportionate to that risk. Where training involved foreseeable falls onto a concrete floor, and matting was accepted as the proper safeguard, providing only one narrow mat was insufficient when a second mat was readily available and could be supplied without difficulty. The requirement is reasonable safety, not perfection. Describing additional protection as a counsel of perfection cannot justify withholding a simple precaution that was plainly desirable and materially reduced the identified risk.

A police detective constable injured his knee during arrest and restraint training. The exercise took place in a hall with a concrete floor, with one judo mat supplied for each pair. The claimant fell partly off the mat and sued his employers in negligence, alleging that two mats should have been provided. The Central London County Court dismissed the claim, holding that the existing mats adequately discharged the duty of reasonable care. The claimant appealed, arguing that the foreseeable risk of a fall required a larger protected area. The central issue was whether the system of work was reasonably safe with one mat rather than two.

The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal. Simon Brown LJ delivered the judgment, with which Latham LJ agreed. The order of the county court was set aside and judgment was entered for the claimant.

1. The relevant standard was whether the defendants had provided a reasonably safe place and system of work. The claimant was not entitled to perfection, but the description of a further precaution as a counsel of perfection did not answer whether reasonable care required it.
2. There was a foreseeable risk that an officer performing the exercise could fall onto the concrete floor. The trial judge had accepted that mats were provided as a proper safeguard against that risk.
3. Once matting was recognised as the appropriate precaution, the issue was whether the area protected was sufficient. Two mats would have provided substantially wider protection than one mat measuring only about 3 to 4 feet in width.
4. There was no suggestion that providing a second mat would have caused difficulty or that mats were unavailable. In those circumstances, two mats were plainly desirable and should have been provided.
5. The argument that greater protection would compromise realistic training did not provide a proper basis for the decision. The trial judge had not found that realism required one mat rather than two, and the exercise had originally been intended to take place in a padded room.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Appeal allowed; the order below was set aside and judgment entered for the claimant.
2. Central London County Court — Judge Crawford Lindsay QC dismissed the claimant’s negligence claim on 10 January 2001.