Eden v West & Company [2002] EWCA Civ 991 (27 June 2002)

Eden v West & Company [2002] EWCA Civ 991 (27 June 2002)

The defendants, being aware of the absence of lintels in some estate houses, were under a duty to warn the claimant of this hidden danger. The claimant could not reasonably have been expected to anticipate the absence of a lintel in a mid-20th-century house without warning or evidence to that effect. The failure to warn constituted a breach of duty under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 991
Parties
Claimant/appellant: David Paul Eden; Defendants/respondents: West & Company
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Manchester County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability, Personal Injury, Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Loss of Earnings
Tort Law Occupiers' Liability Personal Injury Duty of Care Breach of Duty Loss of Earnings

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Paul Eden

Claimant/appellant

West & Company

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Manchester County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants breached their duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 by failing to warn the claimant of the absence of a lintel above the window.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was contributorily negligent.
  3. 3 Assessment of damages for personal injury and loss of earnings.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants, being aware of the absence of lintels in some estate houses, were under a duty to warn the claimant of this hidden danger. The claimant could not reasonably have been expected to anticipate the absence of a lintel in a mid-20th-century house without warning or evidence to that effect. The failure to warn constituted a breach of duty under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Award of £16,672 to the claimant (comprising £10,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenity; £6,000 for loss of earnings; £672 for care).
  • Interest to be agreed.