Hufton v Somerset County Council

The common duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 requires reasonable care in all the circumstances, not measures that absolutely prevent accidents. An occupier may satisfy the duty through a reasonable system for preventing water from being brought into a building, even if that system fails on an isolated occasion. Whether a separate system for detecting and clearing water is required depends on the frequency and nature of the risk and the time available to respond. A trial judge’s evaluative conclusion on reasonable care will not be disturbed on appeal absent error.

Maddison Hufton, aged fifteen and a half, slipped on a small wet area of the wooden assembly hall floor at Ansford Community School, maintained by Somerset County Council. She alleged negligence and breach of the common duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.

The trial judge accepted that the accident occurred but found that the council had a reasonable system for preventing water from entering through fire doors during wet weather. The claim was dismissed. On appeal, the principal issues were whether the preventive arrangements were adequate and whether the council should also have operated a system for detecting and mopping up water during the break.

Appeal dismissed. Jackson LJ delivered the judgment. Elias LJ and the Chancellor of the High Court agreed.

1. The common duty under section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 requires reasonable care to ensure that visitors are reasonably safe. It does not require an occupier to adopt measures that absolutely prevent accidents. The age and characteristics of visitors are relevant; although section 2(3)(a) requires preparation for children being less careful, a pupil aged fifteen and a half could reasonably be expected to take care for her own safety.
2. The council had considered the risk, installed the recommended matting, used wet-weather notices and stationed prefects by the fire doors. The trial judge was entitled to find that these arrangements were reasonable, even though they failed to prevent water entering on the particular occasion. The Court of Appeal would not interfere with the judge’s evaluative conclusion unless he had fallen into error, which he had not.
3. Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd ([1976] 1 WLR 810) was distinguishable. That case concerned frequent spillages and evidence that did not establish a reasonable system for dealing with them. Here, liquid on the floor was not shown to be a frequent problem, and the council had a proper system directed to preventing water from being deposited there.
4. No separate mopping system was required on these facts. The wet area was approximately the size of an A4 sheet and could not have been on the floor for long before the accident. It was unrealistic to expect the school to detect and clear it during the brief interval available. The council was therefore liable neither in negligence nor for breach of statutory duty.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal against the decision on liability.
• Taunton County Court: His Honour Judge Bromilow dismissed the claimant’s negligence and breach of statutory duty claim after finding that the council’s safety procedures were reasonable.