Wrist Injury Compensation Claim

Dorothy Edith May Harvey V Woolworths Plc (2004)

The claimant failed to prove that her fall took place in the defendant's store and in any event the defendant had done what was reasonable to see that a person using its premises was reasonably safe and was not in breach of duty.

The claimant (H) sought damages from the defendant (W) in respect of personal injury allegedly suffered when she slipped and fell in the doorway of W's store. On 21 December 1999 H fell and fractured her left wrist. On that day it had been snowing and there was slushy snow outside the store.

H's case was that she fell as she stepped off a mat inside one set of doors leading into W's shop premises. H claimed that W was in breach of duty under Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 s.2 or was negligent. W denied that H fell in the store and denied breach of duty and negligence.

HELD: (1) Other than H's own evidence there was no witness to the accident. The store entrance was covered by CCTV which showed that on 21 December nobody slipped and fell stepping off the door mat. The staff did not see any accident.

The nurse and doctor who saw H in accident and emergency asked H how the accident had happened and were told that she had fallen on her wrist in the snow. H was prepared to claim that others had mis-recorded matters if the record did not support her case. Considering all the evidence the conclusion on the balance of probabilities was that H did not fall in W's store but outside in the snow.

(2) In any event W, by having large mats which would absorb most of the water brought in on customers' shoes and by putting out yellow warning cones and by having staff do their best to keep up with cleaning away any excessive water, did what was reasonable to see that a person using their premises was reasonably safe. Anybody having walked through slushy snow would expect the floor to be wet for an area around the doors. There was no breach of duty or negligence.

(3) General damages of £6,500 were agreed subject to any reduction if appropriate for H's refusal to have a further operation. On the evidence that there was an 85 per cent chance that further surgery would resolve H's pain so that she could function normally, H had failed to mitigate her loss (applying McAuley v London Transport Executive (1957) 2 Ll Rep 500). General damages would be reduced to £6,000 and her claim for future losses was extinguished. If she had had the operation there would have been a period when she would have needed some assistance and would have been entitled to an allowance of £600 to cover that period.

Judgment for defendant.

Personal Injury - Damages - Negligence

Birmingham County Court (Judge Ian Alexander QC, Judge Ian Alexander QC) 15/1/2004

LTL 23/3/2004 (Unreported elsewhere)

Document No.: AC0108008