Murdock v Scarisbrick Group Ltd.

An occupier’s duty is to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that visitors are reasonably safe. Compliance, or non-compliance, with professional standards is relevant evidence but does not determine whether premises are reasonably safe. The court must assess the particular circumstances, including the obviousness of any hazard, the use made of the premises and the evidence of previous accidents or complaints.

The appellant appealed from the dismissal by His Honour Judge MacMillan in the Liverpool County Court of her claim for damages following a fall in the respondent’s hotel spa. She alleged negligence and breach of statutory duty after slipping while crossing a threshold into a tiled shower area. Liability alone was in issue, quantum having been agreed. The principal appellate questions were whether the judge had failed to consider or properly understand expert evidence and, if so, whether the claim should nevertheless succeed.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge was entitled to reject substantial parts of the expert report. The evidence showed that he had read and considered it, and his comments during submissions did not establish prejudgment or a failure to understand the appellant’s case.
2. The judge was entitled to use his own experience, together with the photographs and other evidence, in assessing whether the threshold was normal and whether the area was reasonably safe. The distinction between an internal corridor and a public corridor was immaterial.
3. Even if the first-instance decision had been set aside for inadequate consideration of the expert evidence, the appeal would still have failed. Approximately 200 people used the spa each day, yet there was no evidence of any previous similar accident or complaint. The photographs also showed an obvious step into an area where the tiles might be moist.
4. The court adopted the distinction stated by Staughton LJ in Green v Building Scene Limited: professional regulations and standards are evidence of what is desirable to avoid accidents, but they do not themselves define what is reasonably safe in the circumstances of a particular case.
5. Under the Occupier’s Liability Act 1957, the respondent had to take such care as was reasonable in all the circumstances to see that the appellant was reasonably safe. That duty was discharged. The claim in negligence and breach of statutory duty therefore failed.
6. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): appeal from the Liverpool County Court dismissed.
• Liverpool County Court: His Honour Judge MacMillan dismissed the appellant’s claim on 18 August 2009.