John E Griggs & Sons Limited v High Firs Penthouses Limited
[2023] EWHC 2231 (TCC)
Kanwarjit Singh Juj v John Lewis Partnership Plc
21 December 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 1507
Court of Appeal
A man fell in a Waitrose car park and sued. The court decided that Waitrose wasn't responsible because the hazard (a kerb) was obvious, and Waitrose didn't have control over the car park's design. Even if Waitrose had reported earlier accidents, it wouldn't have changed the outcome. The man simply tripped because he misjudged the kerb's height.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Kanwarjit Singh Juj (appellant) tripped on a kerb next to a disabled parking bay in a Waitrose car park and suffered injuries.
- •The car park is owned by the London Borough of Hillingdon.
- •Waitrose (respondent) had some degree of control over the car park, including addressing immediate hazards and reporting issues to Hillingdon.
- •The kerb was visible, and Mr. Juj knew it was there when he tripped.
- •Previous similar accidents had occurred in the same parking bay.
- •Waitrose did not report the prior accidents to Hillingdon until 2016.
Legal Principles
An occupier of premises owes a common duty of care to take reasonable care to see that visitors will be reasonably safe.
Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, section 2(2)
The extent of an occupier's duty is determined by the degree of control they exercise over the premises.
Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] AC 552
Occupiers are not under a duty to protect or warn against obvious dangers.
Tomlinson v Congleton BC [2004] 1 AC 46, Edwards v Sutton [2016] EWCA Civ 1005, The White Lion Hotel v James [2021] EWCA Civ 31
An appellate court will not interfere with a trial judge's findings of fact unless they are plainly wrong.
Staechelin & others v ACLBDD Holdings Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 817, Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5, McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58
In cases of omission, the question is what would have happened if the omitted act had occurred.
Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that Waitrose's control over the car park was limited, the kerb was an obvious danger, and Waitrose's failure to report earlier accidents did not cause Mr. Juj's fall. The court found that the claimant's accident was a result of misjudging a manoeuvre, not a breach of duty by Waitrose.