Vicarious liability for colleague dropping liquid | Thompsons Solicitors

The claimant slipped on spilled coffee at the House of Commons where he worked.

The defendant’s witness admitted at trial that the spillage could only have come from an employee. They had argued throughout the case that not only staff used the stairs.

Counsel was then able to argue vicarious liability for the negligence of the unknown employee who had spilled the liquid.

The claimant won on the vicarious liability argument .

Dahdouh -v- House of Commons., 7 September 2006 , Central London CC

Slipping on urine in care home: dignity of patient weighed against safety

The claimant was a community support worker in a residential home. She slipped on urine in the bathroom at work and could not work again.

The claimant was looking after four residents, one of whom was incontinent.

The incontinent resident had urinated on the lounge floor. Our client took him to the toilet in the bathroom. He needed help pulling his trousers down but, at that point, another resident called for her attention. She aided that resident and returned to the bathroom. As she entered the bathroom she realised that the incontinent resident had urinated on the bathroom floor but before she could avoid it she slipped and fell onto the floor injuring her back.

It was our case that the incontinent resident should have been provided with incontinence pads as it was alleged that he regularly urinated in various places around the premises thereby creating a slipping hazard and that, if he had worn these, he would not have urinated on the lounge or bathroom floor. The Workplace Regulations were pleaded.

The defendant said it was inappropriate to "pad" the resident during the day, bearing in mind that the resident's dignity and independence were important. There were records that showed that they were monitoring the incontinence problem and that he had been investigated by his GP and a nurse with experience of residents with incontinence problems.

The Judge found that the defendant had kept inadequate and sporadic records of the resident's incontinence and therefore had not appreciated the severity of the problem. If they had, they should have considered and tried using incontinence pads at least a month before the accident, which would have prevented the accident. In his judgment, the Judge commented that, while the dignity and independence of the resident was important, the defendants had focussed on this to the detriment of their employee's health and safety.

He did however make a finding of 40 per cent contributory negligence on the basis that he found that our client had seen the urine before she stepped in it and therefore could have avoided it.

The claimant therefore received £37,000 based on a three-year acceleration period.

The defendant’s witness admitted at trial that the spillage could only have come from an employee. They had argued throughout the case that not only staff used the stairs.

Counsel was then able to argue vicarious liability for the negligence of the unknown employee who had spilled the liquid.

The claimant won on the vicarious liability argument .

Dahdouh -v- House of Commons., 7 September 2006 , Central London CC

Slipping on urine in care home: dignity of patient weighed against safety

The claimant was a community support worker in a residential home. She slipped on urine in the bathroom at work and could not work again.

The claimant was looking after four residents, one of whom was incontinent.

The incontinent resident had urinated on the lounge floor. Our client took him to the toilet in the bathroom. He needed help pulling his trousers down but, at that point, another resident called for her attention. She aided that resident and returned to the bathroom. As she entered the bathroom she realised that the incontinent resident had urinated on the bathroom floor but before she could avoid it she slipped and fell onto the floor injuring her back.

It was our case that the incontinent resident should have been provided with incontinence pads as it was alleged that he regularly urinated in various places around the premises thereby creating a slipping hazard and that, if he had worn these, he would not have urinated on the lounge or bathroom floor. The Workplace Regulations were pleaded.

The defendant said it was inappropriate to "pad" the resident during the day, bearing in mind that the resident's dignity and independence were important. There were records that showed that they were monitoring the incontinence problem and that he had been investigated by his GP and a nurse with experience of residents with incontinence problems.

The Judge found that the defendant had kept inadequate and sporadic records of the resident's incontinence and therefore had not appreciated the severity of the problem. If they had, they should have considered and tried using incontinence pads at least a month before the accident, which would have prevented the accident. In his judgment, the Judge commented that, while the dignity and independence of the resident was important, the defendants had focussed on this to the detriment of their employee's health and safety.

He did however make a finding of 40 per cent contributory negligence on the basis that he found that our client had seen the urine before she stepped in it and therefore could have avoided it.

The claimant therefore received £37,000 based on a three-year acceleration period.