ou are in: Home Page | About Thompsons | Publications | Law Bulletins | October 2006

Law Bulletin - October 2006

Speed bumps

The claimant was thrown from her moped when she hit an unmarked speed bump.

It was accepted the speed bump was unmarked. As such, it was held it was a hazard. The failure to mark it was negligent and the claimant succeeded.

As she had already gone over one bump and not slowed in caution, she was 50 per cent to blame and damages were reduced accordingly.

Richardson -v- John Crowley (Maidstone) Limited. 14 September 2006, Central London CC.

Workplace slip on own spillage

The claimant was a kitchen assistant at a school.

She was carrying a mop bucket filled with water and spilled some on the floor. She mopped it as best she could and went to get a wet floor sign. When she returned she slipped on the patch of damp floor, fell and fractured her right wrist.

The Judge accepted the claimant's evidence that a mop would usually leave a damp patch and that the claimant had got the floor as dry as she could using a wet mop. We argued that the defendants should have had in place a system whereby a squeegee type mop with a dry cloth wrapped around the end should have been used to get the floor completely dry.

The judge accepted this. He also accepted the claimant's evidence that she was not aware of any such system or the presence of dry cloths with squeegee mops on the premises. The defendant’s witnesses were also obliged to accept that they had no such system in place.

Accordingly the judge found a breach of section 12(3) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 as the defendants had failed so far as was reasonably practicable to keep the floor free from substances likely to cause a person to slip. He went on to deduct one-third for contributory negligence.

Thompson -v- Gateshead MBC