An inspector calls
In the first of a two-part series, Tony Cawley examines recent cases covering occupiers’ liability and looks at the lessons to be learned by local authorities and other public bodies.
In the case of Roe v Hampshire County Council [2010] Mrs Roe attended an out of hours function on Saturday 29 March 2008, an amateur dramatic production being held in the main hall at the Brookfield Community School, Southampton, when she sustained a serious injury to her left little finger.
During the evening performance, the claimant had gone outside, via a set of fire doors which formed an access route, to get some fresh air.
It was accepted by all parties that the weather on that day was extremely windy and as she was re-entering the hall, the wind caught the fire door, causing it to swing to with force, catching her finger, severely injuring it. The terminal phalanx of the left finger was subsequently amputated.
The claimant's case
The claimant claimed breach of duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, against the local authority, as owner/occupier of the school. The claimant's primary claim was that the local authority, or its employees at the school (for which it was vicariously liable), failed to maintain the door hydraulic closer mechanism properly. It did not prevent the door from closing rapidly as it was meant to, she alleged.
The claimant called a number of witnesses in support of her claim including one who was a builder by trade. All of the witnesses gave evidence in their statements that the door was dangerous.
The defendant's case
The defendant relied on the witness evidence of two staff who were employed by the Community School as site managers.
Each gave evidence that there was in place a fully-effective system of twice daily inspections, and a reactive and proactive maintenance programme. As part of the twice daily inspections, performed at the start and end of the school day, the site managers would open and close each door to check them.
The judgment
The judge held that the defendant had discharged its duty concluding that whilst it was evident that the door did close more quickly than other similar doors, this did not make it inherently dangerous.
The judge relied on the evidence of the builder, called on behalf of the claimant, and found that he of all people would have noticed if the door closer was defective and would have likely reported it/secured it. The witness did nothing.
The claimant's witnesses accepted in cross-examination that they did not consider the door was dangerous before the incident and that it was only with hindsight that they did consider it to be dangerous.
The door closer mechanism had been fitted in 2001/2002 and had a working term of six/seven years. Therefore, at the date of the accident it was likely to be approaching the end of its term, not necessarily having reached it.
The claim was dismissed.
Comment
Local authorities own/occupy a large number of premises that may expose members of the public to the risk of injury. If such premises are subject to a regular system of inspection/ maintenance then this ought to discharge the common law duty of care. This is an important reminder for occupiers' liability claims that whilst equipment may not be working perfectly, as long as it is not dangerous, liability ought not to attach.
Tony Cawley of Barlow Lyde & Gilbert LLP acted for the successful defendant in this case. He can be contacted on 020 7643 7801 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
