When eight thousand people don’t trip, but the eight thousandth and one does
What happened?
A woman worked for a famous high street retailer.
There was a weather strip was on an activated door at the end of a well-lit corridor, which was a staff exit. The weather strip was between 8 and 9.5mm higher than the surrounding floor and had been there for up to two years and up to eight thousand people would have walked over it during that time. There were no known previous accidents or complaints.
The women tripped on a weather strip, fractured her wrist, and claimed compensation.
Legal Outcome
The Judge found in favour of the women, saying the traffic route was not suitable for its purpose and that it was uneven. The retail store appealed.
The appeal was allowed.
It was obvious that a weather strip would make a floor uneven if set higher than the floor, and it was situated in an obvious place. A balancing exercise had to be made between the seriousness of the risk of injury against the cost of putting it right. The issues included the nature of the risk, the strip was by a door (which would have meant people walking slower), it was only 9.5mm at its highest, and it was next to a step.
The women also knew the exit well. She was sixty-three years old and walked without picking her feet up. Presumably she was not the only employee that walked that way – people like her had managed to go through the door without difficulty. It was impossible to say that the floor was not suitable. It did not expose individual’s safety risks. Not every trip could entitle a claimant to compensation and the court should have reached that conclusion.
What can we learn from what happened?
The first thing to say is that because the appeal was allowed and no breach of duty had occurred, that does not necessarily mean that it is OK to have trip hazards such as the one in this particular case. Slips and trips are, every year, the biggest cause of RIDDOR reportable, non-fatal accidents, and need to be assessed and taken very seriously.
There were a number of reasons why the judge found in favour of the store, and taken together they resulted in a finding of no liability. It is unlikely that each of these reasons in isolation would suggest the trip hazard was reasonable. And the judge commented on the cost of putting the trip hazard right was a factor to consider – had the corridor been built from scratch, then it would be better to design out the hazard from day one.
And lastly, and hopefully obviously, the absence of previous complaints in itself is not a defence. No previous accidents is only an indicator, not guarantee of no future accidents.
Source of Information
NCRQ Level 6 Coursework
Casemine