Johnson v Warburtons LTD

Johnson v Warburtons LTD

The steps were not inherently dangerous, had been used safely for years, and were approved by the Health and Safety Executive. The need to take care was obvious, and no special training or risk assessment was required. The judge's finding that there was no negligence or breach of duty was not perverse.

Parties
Appellant: Gary Bryan Johnson; Respondent: Warburtons Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Negligence, Duty of Care, Workplace Safety
Tort Employment Law Employer's Liability Negligence Duty of Care Workplace Safety

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Bryan Johnson

Appellant

Warburtons Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer breached its duty of care by providing unsafe steps without a handrail or adequate training
  2. 2 Whether the steps were inherently dangerous and required special training or warnings

Ratio Decidendi

The steps were not inherently dangerous, had been used safely for years, and were approved by the Health and Safety Executive. The need to take care was obvious, and no special training or risk assessment was required. The judge's finding that there was no negligence or breach of duty was not perverse.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; no liability found against the respondent.