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.

Furlough Whistleblower Succeeds in Automatic Unfair Dismissal Claim

Employees are entitled to insist that their employers abide by their legal obligations and should never be penalised for doing so. The point was made by the case of a woman who pointed out that a meeting with her boss had extended beyond her agreed working hours under the COVID-19 furlough scheme. The sales manager was on part-time flexible furlough during the pandemic and, on most days, her agreed working hours were between 10am and 4pm. During a performance review meeting with her boss, she…

Employment Judge’s Interventions Gave Rise to Apparent Bias – EAT Ruling

Judges are entitled to robustly manage the cases that come before them, but what they cannot do is give even an impression that they are taking sides. In a case on point, an employment judge’s interventions during a hotly contested hearing were found to have crossed the line into apparent bias. Following a hearing, which was held via video link during the COVID-19 pandemic, the employment judge upheld an office administrator’s complaint of constructive unfair dismissal. The employer challenged…

Parcel Delivery Franchisees ‘Self-Employed’ – Guideline EAT Ruling

A right to substitute someone else to perform your work is perhaps the most powerful indicator that you are self-employed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) made that point in finding that franchisees engaged by a parcel delivery company enjoyed neither the protected status of an employee nor that of a worker. The case concerned two men who entered into standard-form franchise agreements whereby they were required to provide a vehicle and driver to make collections and deliveries for the…