Kiani v Land Rover Ltd & Ors

A claimant alleging an accidental fall must prove the accident on the balance of probabilities. The court need not reconstruct its precise mechanics where an accidental fall was possible and the evidence makes the only suggested alternative materially less probable.

When reviewing a factual decision, the Court of Appeal must reconsider the material but should give appropriate weight to the trial judge’s advantage. The appellant bears the burden of showing that the factual decision was wrong. The appellate court may uphold an inference drawn from two individually unlikely possibilities where the preferred explanation remains possible and the alternative can properly be discounted.

The deceased was an industrial cleaner at a motor plant. His body was found in a sub-floor coolant tank after a hatch had been left open. His personal representative claimed damages from Land Rover Ltd and Castrol for breach of statutory duty under regulation 13 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.

The recorder found that the deceased had accidentally fallen into the tank, that Land Rover and Castrol were liable, and that damages should be reduced by 33% for contributory negligence. He apportioned liability equally between them. The defendants appealed from Birmingham County Court, challenging only the finding that the death was accidental.

The central issue was whether the evidence entitled the recorder to find, on the balance of probabilities, that the deceased had fallen accidentally rather than committed suicide.

1. The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Waller LJ, with whom Rix and Richards LJJ agreed, held that the recorder was entitled to find that the death was accidental.

2. The claimant bore the burden of proving an accidental fall on the balance of probabilities. The defendants’ positive case of suicide did not transfer that burden. Nevertheless, where accident and suicide were the only possibilities under consideration, it was logically permissible to discount the materially less probable explanation and find the other proved, provided that the preferred explanation remained possible.

3. The expert evidence did not establish that an accidental fall was impossible. It addressed several deliberate methods of entry but did not consider the possibility that the deceased approached the open hatch, bent down to look inside, overbalanced and fell in. The recorder was therefore entitled to conclude that an accident could have occurred without significant injury.

4. The recorder did not have to determine the precise mechanics of the fall. A court may find an accident proved where the evidence establishes its possibility and permits the only suggested alternative to be discounted. The established breach of a duty directed against the very kind of injury that occurred was also relevant.

5. The finding that a Castrol employee had left the hatch open was important. It made suicide a particularly unlikely explanation because the deceased would have had to select, by coincidence, a hatch opened by another person and might not have known the coolant’s depth. The recorder had also considered the absence of cleaning equipment, the lack of injury and the burden of proof.

6. On an appeal against findings of fact, the appellate court must reconsider the material and may reverse a finding shown to be wrong. The weight given to the trial judge’s findings depends on the advantage enjoyed at trial. The appellant bears the burden of establishing error. The appellants had not discharged that burden.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The defendants’ appeal was dismissed unanimously. The court upheld the recorder’s finding that the death was accidental: [2006] EWCA Civ 880.
2. Birmingham County Court: Mr Recorder Rhodri Davies QC found Land Rover and Castrol liable for breach of statutory duty, reduced damages by 33% for contributory negligence, and apportioned liability equally between them. No citation is stated in the judgment.