Ireland v David Lloyd Leisure Ltd

An occupier's warning duty is not discharged by a general warning about moving parts where a machine presents a specific and unusual danger that is not obvious to a casual user. Reasonable care may require warning of the extent and severity of potential injury. On appeal, findings about obviousness, warning adequacy, causation and contributory negligence are evaluative judgments and will stand where consistent with the evidence and not plainly wrong. Broad pleadings may be adequate when supplemented by a Part 18 reply identifying the mechanism of injury. A defendant that chooses not to seek further particulars or an adjournment cannot readily establish procedural prejudice at trial.

The claimant suffered amputation of the tip of her finger while assisting a friend at the defendant's gym. Her finger rested on a fixed block beside the vertical rail of a Smith machine while the weights descended, creating a guillotine effect.

The Bristol County Court found that the risk of amputation was not obvious, that the warnings were inadequate, and that the defendant was negligent. The claimant was found 25% contributorily negligent and awarded £12,000.

The defendant appealed on the adequacy of the pleadings, the obviousness of the danger, the adequacy and causative effect of warnings, the alternative claim under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957, contributory negligence and costs.

1. Appeal dismissed. Ryder LJ gave the principal judgment. Beatson LJ agreed, and Arden LJ agreed with both the reasons given by Beatson LJ and the further reasons given by Ryder LJ.
2. The substantive challenges concerned factual and evaluative conclusions rather than disputed legal principles. The Recorder's findings were supported by the evidence and fell within the broad ambit of judgment available to a first-instance judge. There was no basis for appellate interference.
3. The fixed rubber block had no obvious purpose and created an unusual danger. The risk of amputation was not apparent to a casual observer. The two existing warnings were small, poorly positioned and did not identify the specific danger. A general warning about moving parts was therefore inadequate having regard to the severity of the potential injury.
4. The accepted evidence supported causation. The argument that a specific warning would not have prevented the accident was inconsistent with the claimant's evidence. Her lack of awareness of the particular danger was relevant both to causation and to contributory negligence. There was also no factual basis for treating the accepted practice of spotting as misuse which removed her status as a visitor under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957.
5. The pleadings were adequate. The particulars of breach were broadly drawn, and the Part 18 reply sufficiently identified the mechanism of injury. The defendant could have sought further particulars, an adjournment or an inspection, but did not do so. Its tactical pleading decision did not establish sufficient prejudice to require the claim to fail.
6. The Recorder's finding of 25% contributory negligence and his costs decision were evaluative exercises within his discretion. The general costs rule discussed in Beoco Ltd v Alfa Laval Co Ltd & Anor [1995] QB 137 concerned a materially different case involving a late amendment. It did not require a different order here, where no amendment was made and the pleadings were held adequate.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the appeal.
2. Bristol County Court, before Mr Recorder Berkley, found the defendant negligent, assessed contributory negligence at 25%, awarded £12,000 and made a split costs order.