Anthony Stokes v Ministry of Justice & Anor

An employer owes a non-delegable duty to provide a safe place and system of work. A maintenance contractor may owe a concurrent duty where its work creates or permits a foreseeable hazard. The court may draw proper inferences from primary facts, but liability requires proof on the balance of probabilities that the breach materially contributed to the accident. A material contribution to risk alone is insufficient. Where a defective feature of premises is shown and the evidence demonstrates that inspection and reporting systems were ineffective, the hazard may be found to have been reasonably discoverable. A breach which does not causally contribute to the accident does not establish liability, although it may illuminate the failure of the maintenance system. Contributory negligence was not established where the claimant proceeded along a familiar route after energising defective lighting.

The claimant, a custodial manager employed by the First Defendant, suffered a serious head injury after falling on stairs at HMP Cardiff. The Second Defendant maintained the prison under contract. The trial was split, and this hearing concerned liability only.

The claimant had no recollection of the accident. He relied on evidence that the stair lighting was defective and that a stair nosing had become displaced. The defendants disputed causation, contending that the nosing was displaced by the fall and that the lighting did not affect the accident. They also relied on inspection and reactive-maintenance systems. The issues were whether the claimant had established the cause of the fall, whether either defendant was in breach, whether the breaches were causative, and how any liability should be allocated between the defendants.

1. Factual findings and causation. The court was entitled to draw proper inferences from the primary facts, while avoiding speculation. On the balance of probabilities, the claimant had energised the lights before descending. The lighting was defective, but the relevant upper part of the stairs remained clearly visible. The lighting breach therefore did not materially contribute to the fall.
2. The displaced nosing had been installed inadequately by the Second Defendant. The evidence of the fixing, the condition of the nosing after the accident, the general defects found elsewhere, and the ineffective reporting system supported the inference that the nosing was loose or precariously displaced before the accident. Its condition initiated the fall. This was not merely a material-contribution-to-risk case: the breaches materially contributed to the condition of the particular step, which caused the accident.
3. Duties and maintenance. The First Defendant owed a non-delegable common-law duty to provide a safe place and safe means of access or egress. The Second Defendant owed a duty of care to persons foreseeably affected by its maintenance work. The hazard was reasonably to be found. The inspection and reporting systems were not operating effectively and did not displace the inference of fault. The reasoning in Keefe v Isle of Man Steam Packet Co [2010] EWCA Civ 683 was relevant but not directly on all fours. The approach in Ward v Tesco Stores [1976] 1WLR 810 and Dawkins v Carnival PLC (t/as P and O Cruises) [2011] EWCA Civ 1237 supported the analysis of systems of inspection and reporting.
4. Both defendants were liable. The claimant was not contributorily negligent because he had energised the lights and was following a familiar route.
5. The defendants were jointly and severally liable to the claimant. As between them, the Second Defendant was to contribute 60% and the First Defendant 40%. The parties were directed to file a draft order within seven days.

This was a first-instance liability trial in the High Court. The judgment does not state any prior appellate decision.