Posted By Dave Wilson
1 Yes

2. the courts decide this - if the injury occured as a breach of that duty

3. They can, however if they knowingly supplied alcohol to a person under the influence! how do they know she was under the influence anyway?

What about the 'volenti rule'?

Posted By Tyler
In my experiance most pubs and clubs have a no drinks allowed policy for the dancefloor to combat the risk of slips etc.

This pub did not.

It is also understood that the first girl to trip informed the bar staff that the floor was wet and that she had slipped on it but they chose not to act (too busy serving customers).

Therefore, I believe they had a duty of care and that wasn't fulifilled in this case and the Pub could have reasonably forseen the accident/risk but failed to act accordingly.

The Volenti (non fit injuria)rule..

The person needs to have knowledge of the risk and have consented to accept it. The young lady neither had knowledge of it and certainly did not consent to accept it.

Her acceptance of risk did not include slipping on the dance floor as this is not 'normal' in Pubs (in the ones I go to anyway).


Tyler

Posted By Lewis T Roberts
Tyler,

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes, it is a worthwhile and cost effective argument in some cases considering what might be saved. However I don’t think so in this case with what is known. It looks like the evidence speaks for itself.

Lew

Posted By Tyler
John,

Thats an interesting angle.

Dave, yes I do know the individual, hence my concern. Although I still believe (as impartially as I can be) that a duty of care was owed and and injusry resulted due to negligence on behalf of the duty holder. I do not believe the Volenti rule will be applicable in this case.

I shall be encouraging the young lady to persue a claim through a solicitor.

I loathe the claim culture but as always I believe there is a time and a place for it.

Tyler

Posted By Chris Turner
Is it not foreseeable that when people drink alcohol that they may be less aware of their surroundings and maybe get "drunk"!

This business as with any other must consider all factors when conducting a risk assessment. I cannot see how they can not be liable, even if the person was under the influence of drink.

The key to this is foreseeability of risk, they obviously chose to ignore it and must suffer the consequences, as is the unfortunante person who slipped.

Posted By Tyler
Update 2:

It appears Daves suggestion of the Volenti rule may be stronger than I thought.

The young lady in question has rang a couple of Solicitors and they do not wish to take the case saying she should have known better and that she had had a drink and should expect pub floors to get wet. They imply that it was simply an unfortunate accident.

This truly shocks me. I was of the impression (and it appears so are many of you) that the licensee has a duty of care and this is a reasonably forseeable accident and so the licensee should have arrangements in place to prevent this.

I find it hard to believe someone spills a drink in a burger bar and the signs go up immediately while they clean it up. Yet in a pub its to be expected and you must take the chance!!

Justice???

Posted By Peter Lee
Tyler,

I really do not think that "Volenti non fit injuria" apllies, peole do not enter public houses accepting the risk of being injured.

Dave W has hit the nail on the head, these NWNF solicitors do not take cases they are not 100% certain of winning and the defendant will claim that the lady was under the influence and was wearing high heeled shoes.

Just as an aside my son recently slipped on a plastic ball outside of a ball pool I did not sue the company just brushed him down dried his eyes and notified the staff so preventative measures could be taken.

Posted By Tyler
Peter,

Did your son break both his wrists?

In order to sue for negligence an injury (or damages) must have been suffered.

I do not like the claim culture either but sometimes lessons need to be learned the hard way.

Point taken about the no win no fee guys though.

Incidentally, my son slipped in a burger bar on an area of wet floor (prior to them putting the signs up) I didn't sue them either. Although Im not sure what point tales of this nature prove nor am I sure about what they add to the discussion.

Tyler

Posted By Tyler
I agree about the claims culture.

However, in UK Law there are facilities to claim compensation for a reason.

I think this case is an example (although the courts truly decide) of a case where compensation should be forthcoming.

Having both arms disabled for any length of time is bad enough especially when it is due to the act or omission of someone else!!

As already explained I am personally involved in this thread (Dave she isn't my cousin just a friend of my wife). As such I am removing myself from this discussion for fear of it being reduced to a tit for tat 'arguement' about when or when not to sue for compensation.

A time and a place!!!

Posted By AlanB
Because a serious injury has occurred and the lady is off work through no fault of her own.

Claims culture damages industry and relationships between workers and employers, but safety is cruicial in today's society. I agree that people must take responsibility for their own actions, but bars and clubs must start taking safety more seriously. Another particular concern of mine is the floor tiles used by some fitness centres and swimming pools. When wet, the area around the pools become like ice and is extremely slippery. Surely a bit of common sense and an adequate risk assessment would pick out these areas of risk?

My angle on this is that places of entertainment such as bars, clubs, and swimming baths must learn to engineer out hazardous areas. The cost is minimal compared to potential costs of claims. We are in a time where we must cater for everybody's safety, be they unlucky, in the wrong place at the wrong time, the clumsy, the stupid, the dangerous person who thrives on risk and the person who has had a drink too many on a night out. I think that this is a case where the bar owner was not doing anything different to what almost every other bar in the UK does on a Saturday night. Only this time someone got seriously hurt and has suffered a reduced quality of life for a number of weeks.

Perhaps it is time to get these areas of society to play ball and assess the risks adequately and acto on them adequately?

Posted By Martyn Hendrie
From the information given the young lady has the basis of a claim. There is a forseeable risk (the previous slip) and a direct link to her injuries.

The questions to be established in court would be whether or not the action taken by the staff (if any) to deal with the forseeable risk were reasonable.

Matters relating to her sobriety (or otherwise) and the type of footwear she had on would be considered as to whether there was any contributory negligence. (The case of Vincent Kemp -v - Scottish Secretary give a clear indication of the courts view on drunkenness)

As to those bemoaning the claims culture surely they can find far better examples of trivial claims as on the face of it this lady is liable to have suffered pain/suffering and financial loss.

As for solicitors not wishing to take up her case shame on them.

Posted By Dave Wilson
This compensation has been with us for a couple of years now 1800's its called case law. Until recently it has only been available to the people who have the money to pay for it or have to win at all costs to prevent setting a legal precedence which will cost us millions more.

We are living in an educated society and no longer need to ask the 'pillars' of society (doctors, Bank Managers, vicars etc) to read letters for us.

J Public could still sue the same today as they could 50 years ago, butr didnt as they had no money or the knowledge to do so.

I think you have a case, albeit a bit weak and Volenti and Cont Negligence may come into it, it all depends on the financial cost to you to take it on, solicitors dont care as they will get their fee come what may winj lose or draw! In the end someone has to pay.

Why not find out who their PI insurance company is and write to them and ask for some response, you never know this may have happened in this place before!

Posted By Stuart Nagle
1) being under the influence of alcohol does not necessarilly mean you are drunk or prevent you from being served with another drink! - unless you are obviously drunk (slurring, swaying, glassyeyed etc...

2) this is a public house, who spilt the drink? it happens in such places....

3) what evidence is there that the landlord could have been reasonably aware of the spillage - was it reported? who reported it? who was it reported to? any witnesses?

4) is it reasonably practicable for the landlord to have someone waiting with spill kit by the dancefloor to mop up, just in case somehting is spilt!

5) a defence could be:

a) the action was that of another person or persons unknown

b) the landlord was unaware of the spill and no-one had reported it to him/her

(Compare with highways act re persons injuring themselves on a public highway!!)

c) The person was aware of the risks of slipping on the wet spot, someone had already as mentioned above, but accepted the risk of slipping on the dance floor by dancing there anyway (Volenti non fit endura!)

d) in the scheme of things this area was no more or less dangerous than (i) a wet floor in a toilet (ii) a wet footway outside (iii) any other wet surface that was in fact level with no trips!! a wet floor in the persons own home etc

e) the injured party was under the influence of alcohol - quite common in public houses and this was the cause of the fall or contributed to it

f) by entering the public house the injured party accepted the risk likely to be present on the premises - spilt drinks etc, including wet floors where the premises owners are unaware of their condition/danger or if aware have not had the opportunity to clear the spill up

Perhaps if you trip over on your lawn and break your wrist you could sue the person who laid the turf/mowed the grass/rolled it dug the border/planted the tree that cut you as you fell and claim additional damages for the grass stained knees of you slacks!!!!

I never cease to be amazed by the will to seek remidy to a situation where a person simply has an accident - in these circumstances, in a pub. If the flooring was in bad repair and you tripped over it I could understand it, but slipping on a wet patch from a spilled drink on a dance floor, after a drink to three in a pub!!.....

Posted By Ken Taylor
People who wear high-heels sometimes slip and fall.
People who dance sometimes slip and fall.
People who drink alcohol sometimes slip and fall.
Pub floors often get wet from spillage.
The risks are mounting up.
Landlords must do what is reasonable to keep their premises safe for use by customers.
The main point in this case seems to be the fact that an earlier incident occurred, the spillage was reported and nothing was done about it. The incident was, therefore forseeable and the management have failed in their duty. If there is evidence for this it would seem worth submitting a claim.