Bar Owner Overturns Liability Finding Following Customer’s Fall on Spilt Drink

Hospitality venues must take reasonable steps to keep their customers reasonably safe – but that is not a counsel of perfection. The High Court powerfully made that point in the case of woman who suffered a painful fracture when she slipped on a spilt drink in a late-night bar.

The woman…

Mar 06, 2023

Pexels chan walrus 941864 1024x576

Hospitality venues must take reasonable steps to keep their customers reasonably safe – but that is not a counsel of perfection. The High Court powerfully made that point in the case of woman who suffered a painful fracture when she slipped on a spilt drink in a late-night bar.

The woman was in a crowded corridor in the bar when she fell in the early hours of the morning, sustaining a broken bone in her foot. She launched a personal injury claim against the bar’s proprietor, alleging negligence and that it had breached its duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.

Upholding her claim following a trial, a judge found that steps taken by the proprietor to ensure that drink spillages were promptly cleared up were simply not sufficient. The accident happened in a darkened area of the bar where the wooden floor was likely to become slippery when wet. She was awarded £4,104 in damages.

In allowing the proprietor’s appeal against that ruling, the Court noted evidence that the bar was continuously monitored by members of staff who carried out walking inspections at least every 10 to 15 minutes. There was a proactive system in place to ensure that glass breakages and spillages were dealt with promptly.

Although no blame attached to the woman, the Court noted that most customers of late-night bars would be aware that spilt drinks are not an unknown phenomenon. There was no apparent evidence that spillages were a particular problem or that it was an issue requiring special vigilance. Such accidents, the Court observed, can occur from time to time in any bar.

Overturning the judge’s decision, the Court accepted that the standard of care he imposed on the proprietor went beyond that required by the Act. His ruling effectively placed the proprietor under a duty to have an instantaneous system in place so that no spilt drink could ever be present on the bar’s floor. That was a counsel of perfection which the law did not require.

Hotel Owner Ruled Liable Following Guest’s Fatal Fall from Window

Property occupiers are obliged to take reasonable care for the safety of their visitors, but does that duty extend to those who choose to take obvious risks? The Court of Appeal addressed that issue in a guideline case concerning a hotel guest who fell out of a window to his death. The man was staying on the hotel’s second floor after attending a wedding when he fell nine metres from the sash window in the early hours of the morning. His widow sought compensation from the hotel’s owner under…

Intelligent and High-Achieving Dyslexic People May Still Be Disabled in Law

Dyslexic people may be both highly intelligent and high-achieving but still be disabled in the legal sense of the word. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in a case concerning a worker whose difficulties were such that she could not recall the last time she managed to finish a book. The woman lodged a disability discrimination complaint against her former employer, a university students’ union. To succeed in her claim, she first had to establish that she was disabled within the meaning…

Work Relationships May Be Informal But Employment is Employment

When you engage someone to work in the informal sanctum of your own home, it is easy to forget that you are very likely to owe them all the legal duties of an employer. An Employment Tribunal (ET) powerfully made that point in upholding a home carer’s unfair dismissal complaint. The carer was employed by a mother to look after her son, who had round-the-clock care needs. His role demanded the utmost trustworthiness and reliability. He formed a close bond with his charge and, although the…