Kathleen Vera Lovett V Arthur Anderson & Co & Ors (2003)

The position and condition of a step behind a closed door was not something that the respondent employer should reasonably have foreseen as likely to cause the appellant employee harm in her mistaken belief that the door was the door to the room she was looking for.

Personal Injury - Negligence - Employment

CA (Auld LJ, Arden LJ, Jacob LJ) 5/11/2003

LTL 5/11/2003 EXTEMPORE (Unreported elsewhere)

Document No.: AC9501063

Appeal by the claimant ('L') from the decision of HH Judge Zucker on 9 April 2003 to dismiss her claim in negligence against her employer, the respondent. L had suffered an injury on the fifth floor of an office block which the respondent had recently acquired. On the instruction of the respondent, L had gone for the first time up to the fifth floor to retrieve software from the library, with directions simply to turn left out of the lift.

L opened the door to a room marked as the "Plant Room", stepped forward looking for the light switch, and fell down a six inch step which she had not seen. Rooms in the same position on other floors had no such step. L alleged that the respondent had been negligent in giving her misleading or inadequate directions as to where to go to retrieve the software. The judge held as follows:

(i) if L had been looking where she was going, she could and should have seen the step;

(ii) the cause of the accident was not the respondent's directions but due to L paying inadequate attention; and

(iii) on the basis of the evidence and a site visit, the step would have been obvious as soon as the door was opened.

HELD: (1) The position and condition of the step was not something that the respondent should reasonably have foreseen as likely to cause L harm in her mistaken belief that the door was the door to the room she wanted.

(2) The judge's finding that L could and should have seen the step was a finding of no breach of duty by the respondent, which this court was not able to disturb.

(3) (Arden LJ dissenting) The judge had failed to give weight to the fact that L was carrying out her employer's instruction and on that basis that it was foreseeable that she would not give primary consideration to her own safety. The judge had failed to take into account a factor relevant to causation.

Appeal dismissed.