Lovett v Arthur Andersen & Co & Ors

An appellate court should be slow to disturb factual findings, particularly after a trial judge has inspected the relevant premises. It may intervene where a material contributing cause has been overlooked.

Where a step was plainly visible and was not a hazard to an employee in the claimant’s position, the finding may amount to a finding of no breach of duty. Inadequate directions leading an employee into the wrong room do not establish negligence where the physical feature was reasonably apparent and the employer could not reasonably foresee it causing harm.

The claimant, an employee of Arthur Andersen, was injured after following inadequate directions to a newly relocated software library. The access code supplied to her opened a plant room. Believing it to be the library, she opened the door and fell over a step while looking for the light.

The Central London County Court, presided over by His Honour Judge Zucker QC, dismissed the personal-injury claim. The claimant appealed, arguing that inadequate directions and failure to prevent access to the plant room materially contributed to the accident. The central issue was whether those matters established breach of duty or causation in negligence.

The appeal was dismissed by a majority. Jacob J dismissed the appeal, and Auld LJ agreed. Arden LJ dissented and would have allowed it.

1. Majority view. Jacob J regarded the judge’s conclusion as being that the claimant fell because she failed to pay sufficient attention to a step which she could and should have seen. The inadequate direction created the circumstances of the accident, rather than causing it.
2. Breach of duty. Auld LJ considered that the case was properly resolved as one of breach rather than causation. After viewing the premises, the judge had found that the step was very obvious when the door was opened. In its condition and position, it was not a hazard to an employee approaching the door in the mistaken belief that it was the required room. The employer could not reasonably have foreseen that the step would cause harm in those circumstances. This was a finding of mixed fact and law which the Court of Appeal should not disturb.
3. Dissent. Arden LJ held that the judge had failed to give weight to the claimant’s compliance with her employer’s instructions. In her view, that factor was capable of being a more than minimal contribution to the injury. Her reasoning did not command the majority.
4. The formal order was: appeal dismissed with costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2003] EWCA Civ 1946: appeal dismissed by a majority, with costs. Arden LJ dissented.
• Central London County Court — His Honour Judge Zucker QC: personal-injury claim dismissed.