QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
LEEDS DISTRICT REGISTRY
1 Oxford Row, Leeds, LS1 3BG
B e f o r e :
| CC (by his litigation friend MC)
|- and -
|Leeds City Council
Simon Anderson (instructed by Leeds City Council Legal Services) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 24th May 2018
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Turner :
THE JUDGE'S FINDINGS
THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL
"The learned judge was wrong on the following grounds:
a. Set an unrealistic standard of care that failed properly to take account of the public liability dimension to the claim, the relatively low instance of injury, lack of serious past injury and the fact that the apparatus in which the claimant was injured was not in any way defective.
b. In considering what steps the defendant should have taken to meet the required standard of care he failed to apply s. 1 Compensation Act 2006.
c. On finding there to have been a breach of duty he:
i. Took into account evidence that was not in fact given as to the practicability of a particular preventative measure; and
ii. Failed to take into account significant evidence concerning the manufacturer's advice.
d. Failed to identify any pleaded breach of duty that was potentially causative of the claimant's injuries and apply the 'but for test'."
NO WARNING – BREACH OF DUTY
i) 5 August 2014 Trip/Gun hit mouth. Top lip cut. Attend St Georges.
ii) 7 August 2014 Trip/Gun hit head. Lump on forehead.
iii) 8 August 2014 Trip/Gun under chin. Medical advised. St George's for stitches.
CAUSATION – THE JUDGE'S FINDING
"42. Let me turn therefore to the question of causation because it is argued that whether the Council are in breach or not, it has not been established, the onus being upon the Claimant to establish it, that any breach of duty led to this injury. Mr Anderson's point here is that it was C's evidence that he saw the obstacle in any event, so warning him about it or even drawing his attention by fluorescent strips or in some other way would have made no difference.
…I do not accept that." [Emphasis added]
"MR ANDERSON: …which breaches do you find to be causative of the injury?
JUDGE SAFFMAN: Both…"
CAUSATION – WAS THE JUDGE'S FINDING SUSTAINABLE?
"I accept C's evidence that he saw the obstacle, but he only just did so. His evidence was clear that because of the ambient condition he was not able to gauge the degree of the hazard about which he was dimly aware and the fall occurred because, by virtue on the ambient light conditions in which he found himself, he was not properly able to assess the degree of danger that this hazard presented. He was not, in other words, in a position to evaluate the risk of what he fleetingly saw in those dim conditions."