AB v Pro-Nation Ltd

An occupier must take reasonable care to ensure that lawful visitors are reasonably safe in all the circumstances. Building Regulations, Approved Documents and British Standards are relevant evidence of the appropriate standard, but do not conclusively define it. A flat, poorly identifiable handrail may be inadequate for a newly constructed staircase in licensed premises. Causation is established where a suitable handrail would probably have enabled an unbalanced visitor to avoid the injurious fall. Momentary inattention, alcohol consumption and failure to use an unsuitable handrail did not amount to contributory negligence.

The claimant, a lawful visitor to the defendant’s licensed premises, suffered serious brain injuries after losing his balance while descending a staircase. He alleged breach of the common duty of care under section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, principally because the staircase lacked a suitable handrail on one side and had an inadequate flat rail on the other. He also relied on the curtain, tread dimensions, lighting and staircase layout.

The defendant denied breach and causation, and alleged contributory negligence based on the claimant’s alcohol consumption, failure to take care and failure to use the handrail. The trial concerned liability only.

1. Duty and standard. The defendant owed the claimant the common duty under section 2(2) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 to take reasonable care in all the circumstances to ensure that he was reasonably safe. Under section 2(3), the expected degree of care from the visitor was relevant. The use of the premises for alcohol consumption was also relevant because of the increased risk of falls.
2. Regulatory material. Building Regulations, Approved Documents and British Standards did not themselves create the civil duty, but were important evidence of current professional opinion and desirable safety standards. Approved Document M applied because the works were a material alteration to a non-domestic building. Where it conflicted with Approved Document K, Approved Document M took precedence.
3. Breach. The staircase was newly constructed. The flat rail was difficult to grip and identify, and was materially inferior to the circular handrail contemplated by the regulatory material. The absence of a second handrail also contributed to the finding that the arrangement was not reasonably safe. The claimant did not establish that the tread dimensions, lighting, curtain or general layout independently made the staircase unsafe.
4. Causation. The claimant became unbalanced on the first step, probably at least partly because of alcohol consumption. A visible and properly constructed handrail would probably have enabled him to steady himself while still on his feet and avoid the fall down the lower flight, which caused his injuries.
5. Contributory negligence and order. The claimant’s conduct amounted at most to momentary inattention. His alcohol consumption and failure to use the defective or obscured handrail did not constitute blameworthy conduct warranting a reduction. Judgment was entered for the claimant, who was entitled to recover damages in full.