Bar Owner Overturns Liability Finding Following Customer’s Fall on Spilt Drink

Hospitality venues must take reasonable steps to keep their customers reasonably safe – but that is not a counsel of perfection. The High Court powerfully made that point in the case of woman who suffered a painful fracture when she slipped on a spilt drink in a late-night bar.

The woman…

Mar 06, 2023

Pexels chan walrus 941864 1024x576

Hospitality venues must take reasonable steps to keep their customers reasonably safe – but that is not a counsel of perfection. The High Court powerfully made that point in the case of woman who suffered a painful fracture when she slipped on a spilt drink in a late-night bar.

The woman was in a crowded corridor in the bar when she fell in the early hours of the morning, sustaining a broken bone in her foot. She launched a personal injury claim against the bar’s proprietor, alleging negligence and that it had breached its duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.

Upholding her claim following a trial, a judge found that steps taken by the proprietor to ensure that drink spillages were promptly cleared up were simply not sufficient. The accident happened in a darkened area of the bar where the wooden floor was likely to become slippery when wet. She was awarded £4,104 in damages.

In allowing the proprietor’s appeal against that ruling, the Court noted evidence that the bar was continuously monitored by members of staff who carried out walking inspections at least every 10 to 15 minutes. There was a proactive system in place to ensure that glass breakages and spillages were dealt with promptly.

Although no blame attached to the woman, the Court noted that most customers of late-night bars would be aware that spilt drinks are not an unknown phenomenon. There was no apparent evidence that spillages were a particular problem or that it was an issue requiring special vigilance. Such accidents, the Court observed, can occur from time to time in any bar.

Overturning the judge’s decision, the Court accepted that the standard of care he imposed on the proprietor went beyond that required by the Act. His ruling effectively placed the proprietor under a duty to have an instantaneous system in place so that no spilt drink could ever be present on the bar’s floor. That was a counsel of perfection which the law did not require.

Tribunal Condemns ‘Inept and Misjudged’ Workplace Bullying Investigation

Employers who fail to conduct workplace disciplinary proceedings fairly risk serious financial and reputational consequences. In one case, a company’s handling of a bullying investigation was roundly condemned as a catalogue of ineptitude and misjudgment. The case concerned a business development manager who was accused of bullying a subordinate. Whilst accepting that she could sometimes be abrupt, she denied that she was a bully or that she had any intention to cause distress. She was…

Highway Authority Not Responsible for Catastrophic M25 Lorry Crash

Those involved in catastrophic road accidents frequently point the finger of blame at potholes or other defects in the road surface. As one case showed, however, it can be an uphill task to pin responsibility for such accidents on highway authorities. The case concerned an accident which befell an articulated lorry whilst works were in progress to convert a stretch of the M25 into a smart motorway. The lorry was using the hard shoulder when its wheels strayed onto the verge and over a filter…

Coarse Language in the Workplace – ET Upholds Harassment Claim

Even if the kind of coarse language used in traditionally male-dominated workplaces was once acceptable, it certainly is not today. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in awarding substantial damages to an office administrator who was harassed by her foul-mouthed line manager. The woman worked at a lambskin processing plant, next to an abattoir. She resigned after less than a year in the job, citing what she viewed as her manager’s unacceptable, unpleasant and harassing behaviour. She…