Lovett v Arthur Andersen & Co & Ors

Lovett v Arthur Andersen & Co & Ors

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge found as a fact that the step was obvious and illuminated, and that the claimant's failure to see it was due to her own lack of attention, not any breach of duty by the employer. There was no negligence on the part of the employer that was causative of the accident.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Kathleen Vera Lovett; Defendant/respondent: Arthur Andersen & Co; Defendant/respondent: Arthur Andersen Consulting; Defendant/respondent: Accenture (UK)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Employer's Duty of Care, Causation
Tort Law Employment Law Negligence Employer's Duty of Care Causation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kathleen Vera Lovett

Claimant/appellant

Arthur Andersen & Co

Defendant/respondent

Arthur Andersen Consulting

Defendant/respondent

Accenture (UK)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer was negligent in providing inadequate directions leading to the claimant's injury
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's own lack of attention was the sole cause of the accident
  3. 3 Whether the employer breached its duty of care

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge found as a fact that the step was obvious and illuminated, and that the claimant's failure to see it was due to her own lack of attention, not any breach of duty by the employer. There was no negligence on the part of the employer that was causative of the accident.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs