Pollock v Cahill & Anor [2015] EWHC 2260 (QB) (30 July 2015)
The defendants breached their duty of care as occupiers by leaving a second-floor window open in a room occupied by a blind guest, creating a foreseeable and real risk of serious injury. The claimant did not accept the risk nor was he contributorily negligent. The injury was caused by the defendants' breach of duty.
- Citation
- [2015] EWHC 2260 (QB)
- Parties
- Claimant: Mark Pollock; Defendant: Enda Cahill; Defendant: Madeline Cahill
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 30 July 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Personal Injury Claim / Trial on Liability Only
- Outcome
- Judgment for the claimant on liability
- Legal Topics
- Occupiers' Liability, Negligence, Duty of Care, Contributory Negligence, Volenti Non Fit Injuria
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mark Pollock
Claimant
Enda Cahill
Defendant
Madeline Cahill
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim / Trial on Liability Only
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendants breached their duty of care as occupiers under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 resulting in the claimant's injuries
- 2 Whether the claimant accepted the risk (volenti) or was contributorily negligent
Ratio Decidendi
The defendants breached their duty of care as occupiers by leaving a second-floor window open in a room occupied by a blind guest, creating a foreseeable and real risk of serious injury. The claimant did not accept the risk nor was he contributorily negligent. The injury was caused by the defendants' breach of duty.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the claimant on liability
Orders
- Defendants found liable for claimant's injuries
- Quantum of damages limited to £2,000,000 as per claimant's express limitation
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment