Laverton v Kiapasha (T/A Takeaway Supreme): CA 19 Nov 2002

Slipping on wet floor of takeaway – claimant had too much to drink – wearing high heels.
Held: ‘There is a distinction between particular dangers such as greasy spillages, which it is reasonable to expect a shopkeeper to deal with straightaway, and the general problem posed by walked in water on a wet night, which can never be completely avoided. ‘ and ‘it was not reasonable to expect the shopkeeper to ensure that the mat was in place and mop the floor often enough and efficiently enough to prevent its being wet, even significantly or considerably so. To suggest otherwise is a counsel of perfection imposing a near strict liability which the law does not at present do. I would therefore allow the appeal and dismiss the claim in its entirety.’
[2002] EWCA Civ 1656
Bailii
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 2
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedWard v Tesco Stores Ltd CA 1976
The claimant slipped on the contents of a yoghurt pot which had spilled onto the floor of the supermarket. The defendants gave evidence of frequent inspection and sweeping of the supermarket floor with instructions to the staff to clear up spillages . .
CitedTurner v Arding and Hobbs Ltd CA 1949
The court described the duty of a shopkeeper to take care for his customers: ‘The duty of a shopkeeper in this class of case is well-established. It may be said to be a duty to use reasonable care to see that the shop floor, on which people are . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 April 2021; Ref: scu.188962