Public Liability

Client: International Retail Company

Issue / Claim: A visitor to our client’s premises claimed compensation as a result of a fall from height, leading to permanent upper limb injuries and disability. The case was of major strategic importance to our client as it criticised the layout of the premises, which was similar to thousands of its franchised outlets throughout the country, as well as those of competitors.  An adverse finding would have required a costly re-design of all such premises, not only for our client but for the industry as a whole.

Weightmans’ Investigation and Action: The claim was made under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 on the basis that the claimant was entitled to visit the premises at the time of the incident, but that the premises had unsatisfactory pedestrian walkways. He pursued an alternative claim under the 1984 Act, following our contentions that, even if the claimant had visited the premises (which was denied, thereby introducing allegations of fraud), he was in fact trespassing in the area where the accident occurred. We further noted that the premises were in any event designed primarily for vehicular rather than pedestrian access.

In defending the claim, we applied our detailed knowledge of the retail industry and lengthy experience of the laws affecting it. In particular, we focused on the nature of a retailer’s invitation to customers to enter their premises and the reasonable practicability of what the industry can achieve in relation to premises layout. We also highlighted the difference between the statutory definitions of visitor and trespasser and the nature of an occupier’s liabilities towards each of these under statute.

Result: After a protracted trial, the Recorder accepted our contention that the layout of the premises was safe, as shown by the lack of accidents and its similarity to thousands of sites throughout the UK. In addition, it was accepted that a retailer’s invitation was only to enter such premises with the intention to browse and purchase, rendering the claimant a trespasser on our client’s land. Consequently our clients were not in breach of their public liability duties, and the accident arose through the claimant’s own carelessness.