Skip to content
- Our People
- Barristers
- Mediators
- Attorney General’s Panel of Counsel
- Services
- Abuse
- Clinical Negligence
- Commercial Dispute Resolution
- Counter Fraud
- Credit Hire
- Criminal Regulatory
- Disease
- Employment
- Group Actions
- Housing
- Inquests
- Insolvency
- Insurance
- Motor
- Personal Injury
- Professional Negligence
- Serious Injury
- Sports
- Knowledge Hub
- Knowledge Hub
- Events
- Webinars
- Publications
- News
- Blogs
- Personal Injury
- Disease
- Clinical Negligence
- Inquests
- Join Us
- Pupillage
- Mini Pupillage
- Work Experience
- About Us
- Complaints
- Direct Access
- Diversity and Inclusion
- Feedback
- Instructing us
- Legal and General Information
- Our Values
- Responsible Business
- How we use your Personal Information
- 0115 947 2581
- Contact us
What are you looking for?
Back
Personal Injury
22 Jan 2021
Author(s)
- Hollie Birkett
In The White Lion Hotel v James [2021] EWCA Civ 31 the Court of Appeal considered the ambit of the well-known authorities on ‘obvious risks’ in the context of occupiers’ liability, and the proper approach to section 2(5) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.
Background
HHJ Cotter QC at first instance gave judgment for the Claimant, the widow and personal representative of the deceased, in respect of an accident which was found to have been caused by the Defendant’s breach of duty under section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. The brief circ*mstances of the accident were as follows. On 5 July 2015 the deceased was a guest at the Defendant’s hotel. Whilst sitting on the windowsill in his room and leaning out of the sash window the deceased fell two stories to his death.
The Defendant had pleaded guilty to a breach of section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 in respect of the window, which it was accepted had posed a foreseeable risk of harm. Judgment was entered subject to a finding of contributory negligence of 60%. Permission to appeal was granted to the Defendant.
Grounds of Appeal – Voluntary Acceptance of Risk Principle
The relevant ground of appeal for the purpose of this blog is whether the judge failed to apply the principle that a person of full age and capacity who chooses to run an obvious risk cannot found an action against a Defendant on the basis that the latter has either permitted him to do so, or not prevented him from doing so. Reliance was placed on the ratio of Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2004] 1 AC 46, Edwards v Sutton London Borough Council [2017] PIQR P2 and Geary v JD Weatherspoon [2011] EWHC 1506 (QB).
Outcome – No General Principle
In the leading judgment of Nicola Davies LJ, the Court of Appeal rejected the existence of a general principle that a person of full age and capacity who chooses to run an obvious risk cannot ground an action for damages on the basis of the Defendant’s failures, noting that it was not borne out by the authorities relied upon. Rather, the Court found at [83] that:
“What a claimant knew, and should reasonably have appreciated, about any risk he was running is relevant to that analysis and, in cases such as Edwards and Tomlinson, may be decisive. In other cases, a conscious decision by a claimant to run an obvious risk may, nevertheless, not outweigh other factors.“
Comment
This interpretation could give rise to a situation whereby an obvious risk is consciously accepted but is outweighed by other factors, such that the risk falls within the ambit of the duty of care. But if an obvious risk is found to be consciously, or voluntarily, accepted then arguably section 2(5) of the 1957 Act bites whatever competing interests arose during the ‘ambit of the duty’ balancing exercise. It is difficult to see in what circ*mstances a claimant who has consciously accepted an obvious risk can be said to lack full knowledge of the nature and extent of such risk so as to deny a section 2(5) defence.
Of course, it is a different question whether the deceased in fact voluntarily accepted the risk, to which the extent of his knowledge and the obviousness of risk are both relevant factors. Clearly a less obvious danger is more likely to give rise to risks, the nature and extent of which may not be fully appreciated.
At the time of writing there is no further appeal contemplated, however, given the importance of the general principle denied by the Court of Appeal it may well be ripe for consideration by the Supreme Court.
To view the full judgment of the Court of Appeal, click here.
Back to Top
Author
Hollie BirkettCall: 2018
ContactView Profile
Recent Posts
Personal Injury
10 Jul 2024
I recently acted in the High Court appeal in Wetherell v Student Loans Company Ltd [2024] EWHC 1443 (KB) which raises some interesting questions about the personal injury landscape after the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. When the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 came into force and personal injury claimants could no longer…
Tom Carter
Read more
Disease
04 Jul 2024
On 14 March 2024 the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in White v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2024] EWCA Civ 244. The White appeal was one of two cases, heard together, the other being Cuthbert v Taylor Woodrow Construction Holdings. The issue in each case was that of breach…
Philip Turton
Read more
Personal Injury
16 Apr 2024
On 10 April 2024, the High Court handed down its decision inWilliams-Henry v Associated British Ports Holdings Ltd[2024] EWHC 806 (KB). In that judgment the presentation of the Claimant’s claim for personal injury was considered fundamentally dishonest and so was dismissed undersection 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015(“the2015 Act”). In considering whether…
Jack Stuart
Read more
Back to Blogs
Barrister Shortlist
You have {number} profile in your brochure
View your ShortlistDownload your PDF
