In this case the claimant was taken from the scene of the accident by ambulance and there was CCTV footage of the accident.
The defendant tried to argue that CCTV footage showed the accident was so low impact that no one could reasonably have been injured.
They insisted the claimant’s doctor be cross-examined at court but the judge found the claimant’s evidence was credible. A slight inconsistency in the medical records could be explained by poor recording at the hospital.
The Judge found for the claimant.
Louis Fionda -v- Mr D Purvis. Newcastle upon Tyne County Court, 28 March 2006.
Occupiers’ Liability: trespasser or visitor?
In this case, the judge hoped to decide whether the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 or the OLA 1984 Act applied. The claimant tripped over bolts protruding above ground level outside an unoccupied shop owned by the defendant. The bolts were there as a result of a bollard that was removed from the area of the accident by vandals overnight before the accident. We tried to argue that there was implied consent for all users of the forecourt as it was a well known shortcut.
The judge held that it could not be proved that the defendant knew the area was used by the public and even then with the use of bollards he had tried to set up a physical barrier to people using the area. So the 1957 Act could not apply.
This was fatal to the case as the 1957 Act, in the opinion of counsel, set up a far easier case than the fall back of using the 1984 Act for trespassers. In that case the duty of care is only what is reasonable in all the circumstances. Placing bollards that had only been removed just before the accident was a reasonable defence.
The claimant lost.
Jillian Edmunds -v- Mr Amoroso Sarro and Mrs Annunziata. Luton County Court, 28 March 2006.