Case studies
- The claimant visited Morrison’s Supermarket and having paid for her goods she stepped around the till tripped over a box and fell landing on both knees sustaining soft tissue injuries. The boxes were placed under a ledge at the end of the tills for customers to use. One had been knocked out of position.. It was not known how long it had been there. The defendant denied liability. The defendant argued that they had a reasonable system in place to ensure that the till area is kept tidy and stated that there had been no similar accidents recorded. The Judge found for the claimant on the basis that by placing the boxes at the end of the tills created a potential hazard to customers if they were dislodged from the "safe" area. Russell Jones & Walker recovered £2000 in damages for the claimant.
- Russell Jones & Walker acted in libel action against Associated Newspapers Ltd for an officer concerning an article published in the Daily Mail which accused him of having sent racist hate mail to himself and others in the Ealing Division of the Metropolitan. The action was settled with apology published in the Daily Mail on 23 August (the officer was not concerned to recover damages).
- On 23rd October 2005, the Claimant was leaving Whitefield Police Station engaged on a call. He made his way to the exit of the Parade Room which leads out in to the car park at the rear of the station. The door leads out on to a step. He opened the door and found that Ford Transit PSU Carrier had parked directly in front of the steps. The Claimant therefore stepped to the left of the door in order to be able to close the door and then walked over to the right side of the step which was now directly opposite him in order to step off in to the car park. As he stepped off the step, his head collided with the corner bottom edge of a post. The post was a CCTV stand which had been fixed to the wall. The bottom of the post was 6 foot above the step. The Claimant is 6 foot 3 inches. Russell Jones and Walker were successful in recovering damages for the officer involved.
- Russell Jones & Walker acted in a case of indirect sex discrimination and a part time workers claim about the refusal of a permanent position in the child abuse investigation unit. Russell Jones & Walker acted for a part time worker who was already working in the unit to cover a maternity leave worker. The case was settled for a post to the unit together with a letter of regret.
- Russell Jones & Walker acted for a Claimant police officer who attended the scene of a fatal shooting of his colleague and wounding of two further colleagues. He was unaware the gunman was still present in the vicinity. He sustained psychological injuries only, Russell Jones & Walker were successful in recover substantial damages for the claimant.
- Officers Bite Back Against Fleas. Two officers have been successful in obtaining compensation from Dudley Council, in respect of flea bites sustained when entering a Council flat.
Christian Shotton of Russell Jones and Walker solicitors acted for two officers, who inspected a property for the purposes of covert surveillance operations. Both officers were informed that the property was vacant and had recently been fumigated.
Accompanied by a Council employee, the officers entered the property and after a few minutes decided that it was not suitable for their surveillance needs and promptly left.
On returning to their OCU both officers noted that their clothes were covered in fleas. The clothes were subsequently destroyed and both officers were now suffering from extensive flea bites; one officer had over 150 bites.
Claims for personal injury were started in November 2003, the allegations being that the Council should have either warned the officers of the risk to themselves of entering the property and sustaining flea bites and / or allowing the officers to enter the property at all, when in the knowledge that infestation may still exist.
The Council continued to deny liability and legal proceedings were started in the autumn of 2005 and the claims were heading for Trial in the summer of 2006. However, at the eleventh hour, namely in May 2006, the Council disclosed further evidence that suggested the original fumigation had been carried out by a private contractor by the name of Aqua Force.
Legal proceedings against the Council were temporarily halted, whilst investigations and disclosure of further documentation could be obtained from Aqua Force. On receipt of this further information, and also because of the length of time that had elapsed from the date of the injuries, the decision was made to bring Aqua Force into the legal proceedings.
Further documentation revealed that it was widely known to the Council that fumigation was not an exact science, such that no fumigation of premises could completely guarantee to eradicate any infestation. In fact, the Council had previously had to call Aqua Force back to other properties for a second, third or even a fourth fumigation, depending on the severity of the infestation at those properties.
Both officers have maintained that by being told the property had been "recently fumigated", the inference was that it was safe to enter. Had it been made aware to the officers that it may not have been safe to enter the property, they would not have done so at all or would have done so but with the correct PPE, if it had been available.
At Trial, at Birmingham County Court in June 2007, the Judge held that there had been a number of failings by the Council. They had not checked the premises following the initial fumigation to check if it had been successful, had not warned the officers of the potential risk to them and had also allowed the officers to enter the premises when in the knowledge that a risk of injury existed. The Judge found no fault against Aqua Force, who had simply performed a fumigation and left, as was their contractual obligation. It was the Council’s duty to check the property following fumigation and if necessary to call back Aqua Force for further services.
These cases highlight the onus that is on local Councils to be aware of their duties in both common law and also their statutory duties under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.
Many officers will be required to enter such properties, exposing themselves to a whole host of risks, both obvious and hidden. On this occasion the Council breached their duty of care to these officers in failing to ensure that the premises had been rendered safe from a known risk.
This negligence was then compounded by the decision of their legal team to fight these claims all the way to Trial, meaning it took 4 years for the officers to obtain redress.
