Searson v Brioland
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; [2005] 05 EG 202 (CS)(1)Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2005] EWCA Civ 55, 24 January 2005. Considers whether compliance with the Building Regulations excludes negligence. S had claimed under the Occupier's Liability Act 1957 s2 that the B was liable for the injury caused when she tripped over a raised sill on leaving B's hotel. S claimed that one expected a step up into a building but not on the way out. The judge allowed the claim. B appealed on the grounds that the doorway met the requirements of the Building Regulations and there had been no previously reported accidents. "Held": compliance with the relevant regulations did not exclude common law negligence; any lack of previous reported trips was not relevant since S had fallen and B had to take her as he found her. Appeal dismissed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS68756 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 128936-1001 |
[2005] EWCA Civ 55, 24 January 2005. Considers whether compliance with the Building Regulations excludes negligence. S had claimed under the Occupier's Liability Act 1957 s2 that the B was liable for the injury caused when she tripped over a raised sill on leaving B's hotel. S claimed that one expected a step up into a building but not on the way out. The judge allowed the claim. B appealed on the grounds that the doorway met the requirements of the Building Regulations and there had been no previously reported accidents. "Held": compliance with the relevant regulations did not exclude common law negligence; any lack of previous reported trips was not relevant since S had fallen and B had to take her as he found her. Appeal dismissed.