The appellant company managed a prison They now appealed against an order finding them liable to the claimant prisoner for personal injury under the 1957 Act. The claimant had been returned to the prison after a hip operation. The lights went out. He called for assistance, but after a delay, he further injured himself attempting to use the toilet in the cell in the dark.
Held: ‘The judge applied the correct approach to the assessment of whether or not there had been a breach of the duty of care prescribed by section 2 of the Act. He asked the correct questions and applied the correct law. His decision was one that he was entitled to reach on the evidence before him. Furthermore, his decision turned on the particular facts of this case and did not involve the imposition of an unduly high standard of care. For those reasons, this appeal is dismissed.’
Lewis J
[2016] EWHC 2355 (QB)
Bailii
Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – West Sussex County Council v Pierce (A Child) CA 16-Oct-2013
‘The question which has to be addressed therefore is whether as a matter of objective fact, visitors to the School were reasonably safe in using the premises’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 July 2021; Ref: scu.570510