Hassan v Gill

A shopkeeper is not strictly liable when a customer slips on produce. Once the claimant shows that an unusual hazard was present where customers were invited, an evidential burden falls on the shopkeeper to explain the accident and demonstrate reasonable precautions. The duty is to operate a reasonable system capable of identifying and removing hazards within a reasonable time. There is no universal requirement for proactive walking inspections. The adequacy of a system depends on the particular premises, goods, staff, customers and foreseeable risks. A reactive system may suffice if evidence shows that spillages were promptly detected and cleared. General assertions about periodic sweeping are insufficient without evidence of how and when the system operated.

Mrs Samera Hassan was injured after slipping on grapes on the pavement outside The Stall, a greengrocery business operated by Mr Onkar Singh Gill. At trial, HHJ Bailey found negligence and ordered Mr Gill to pay £111,859 in damages, interest and costs. The appeal was confined to negligence; permission to challenge the identity of the proper defendant had been refused.

The judge held that the defendant had operated a reactive clear-up-when-spotted system and that reasonable precautions required periodic walking inspections. Mr Gill argued that the judge had treated the authorities as prescribing a proactive system and had failed to consider evidence that the premises were swept four or five times daily. The central issue was whether the system and supporting evidence were sufficient in the circumstances.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that HHJ Bailey had neither misdirected himself in law nor made factual findings unsupported by the evidence.
2. A shopkeeper owes visitors a duty to take reasonable care to keep areas to which they are invited reasonably safe. Where a claimant proves that she slipped on an unusual hazard which ought not to have been present, the evidential burden shifts to the defendant to explain the accident and show that reasonable steps were taken. The duty is not one of strict liability. This approach was taken from Turner v Arding & Hobbs Ltd [1949] 2 All ER 911.
3. There is no categorical rule requiring every retailer to operate a proactive walking-inspection system. The necessary precautions depend on the circumstances, including the size and physical features of the premises, the nature of the goods, the number and nature of staff, and the number and nature of customers. Ward v Tesco Stores [1976] 1 WLR 810 and Jacob v Tesco Stores were treated as guidance rather than a fixed blueprint.
4. The defendant had to provide evidence of the system actually operating at the relevant time and of its effectiveness. The evidence here was general, did not establish the deployment of staff, and did not show that the alleged sweeping routine occurred at prescribed intervals or was directed to spillage hazards. The absence of attempts to identify and trace staff who had been present, together with the absence of an accident-book entry, was significant. A late claim may create forensic difficulties, but it does not remove the need to provide convincing evidence of the system.
5. Sir Stephen Sedley agreed that a properly functioning reactive system could have sufficed if the evidence showed prompt clearance. The evidence did not do so. The order dismissing the appeal was made.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal by the first defendant confined to negligence dismissed. The court upheld the negligence finding and the order for damages.
• Central London Civil Justice Centre: HHJ Bailey, after a three-day trial ending on 14 September 2011, found negligence and ordered payment of £111,859 plus interest and costs, with £20,000 payable on account.