Ellis v Bristol City Council: CA 5 Jul 2007

The claimant appealed dismissal of her claim for personal injuries. She worked at a nursing home, and had slipped on urine on the floor. Slip mats had been placed on the floor, but had been insufficient. There had been previous accidents, and a risk assessment had identified the dangers, and steps taken. The claim was based on the construction of the floor.
Held: The judge had wrongly not considered the associated Code of Practice as an aid to construction of the Regulations. The appeal was allowed. The judge had been wrong to have excluded all but permanent features of the floor: ‘Regulation 12(1) and (2) do require the court to consider suitability in the context of the circumstances of use, including circumstances which are temporary in nature, providing they arise with a sufficient degree of frequency and regularity. The paragraphs read together require that the surface of a floor or traffic route must not be slippery.’

Judges:

Smith LJ, Lloyd LJ, Wilson LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 685, Times 21-Aug-2007, [2007] ICR 1614

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 12, Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRogers v George Blair 1971
The court considered the suitability of some goggles as a means of protecting a workman’s eyes.
Held: To be suitable, the protection need not make it impossible for an accident to occur but it must make it highly unlikely. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.254461