By Morag Lewis, Senior Underwriter
Estimated Reading Time – 2 minutes 12 seconds
The claimant had been drinking alcohol while out socialising with friends at a work function. She had begun drinking at approximately 5.30pm and continued to drink up until around 9:00pm. It was clear that the court would find that the claimant was intoxicated.
At approximately 9:30pm the claimant decided she was going to go home. Home was a 15-minute walk away and, before leaving, she went to the toilet. The toilets at the claimant’s place of work were large and including a dressing area along with cubicles. There was not a clear view of the cubicle from the main door when entering the toilets.
While using the toilet the clamant ‘must have passed out’ as she woke at 02:30am with very little feeling in her legs, in fact they felt numb she was unable to move or call anyone due to her phone battery being empty. She was found by the cleaners at 05:30am when they began their shift.
She was immediately taken to hospital and diagnosed with bilateral compartment syndrome in both legs with required emergency fasciotomies which ultimately involved skin grafts.
A letter of claim was served alleging the defendants were in breach of their statutory duty owned pursuant of OLA 1957 the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and also in breach of the common law duty of care. The allegation is that they ought to have inspected the toilets to ensure that they were empty before locking the premises.
Liability was denied
The defendant alleged that it was not their duty to check every cubicle, they would simply open the toilet door and shout to see if there is anyone still in there. As the cubicle door was not locked, it was stated the
claimant could have quite easily exited the premises via a fire door and it was only the front doors that were locked.
As risk assessment was disclosed – this assessment however didn’t consider that there may have been a risk that and person may not have been able to leave the toilet.
The defendants applied to strike out the claim as per. CPR Part 4.4(2)(a) on the grounds that they disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim. They were successful and the court awarded payment for the defendant’s costs.
The Temple Perspective
This is an interesting and unusual case and there are many arguments as to why, knowing that there may be intoxicated people on the premises, that maybe a more detailed check should be undertaken before locking the premises.
To read more of Temple’s personal injury case studies, visit https://www.temple-legal.co.uk/solicitors/personal-injury-ate/case-studies/. Find out more about ATE Insurance for personal injury claims here. To discuss your requirements please email or call 01483 514881
Morag Lewis
Senior Underwriter
Morag Lewis
Morag has a legal background and joined Temple in 2022 after working for over three years at a Surrey law firm, where she assisted with personal injury and clinical negligence cases, along with some dispute resolution matters.
Her experience equips her to contribute effectively to Temple’s ATE insurance personal injury and clinical negligence teams.
As an Advanced Paralegal (MCILEX), Morag is now preparing to take her insurance exams, which will enable her to further develop her skills within the company and continue delivering excellent service to Temple’s customers.
Read articles by Morag Lewis
