Geary v JD Wetherspoon Plc [2011] EWHC 1506 (QB) (14 June 2011)

Geary v JD Wetherspoon Plc [2011] EWHC 1506 (QB) (14 June 2011)

The claimant voluntarily and knowingly assumed the obvious and inherent risk of sliding down the banister, and the defendant did not assume responsibility for her safety. There was no defect in the premises, and no duty of care arose under common law or the Occupiers' Liability Acts. The claim fails as a matter of law.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1506 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Mrs Ruth Geary; Defendant: J D Wetherspoon PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim (negligence and Occupiers' Liability) / Judgment on Liability After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Voluntary Assumption of Risk (volenti Non Fit Injuria), Duty of Care, Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, Assumption of Responsibility
Tort Law Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability Negligence Voluntary Assumption of Risk (volenti Non Fit Injuria) Duty of Care Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Ruth Geary

Claimant

J D Wetherspoon PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim (negligence and Occupiers' Liability) / Judgment on Liability After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant in respect of injuries sustained while sliding down a banister
  2. 2 Whether the claimant voluntarily assumed an obvious and inherent risk, negating liability
  3. 3 Whether the defendant assumed responsibility for the claimant's safety

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant voluntarily and knowingly assumed the obvious and inherent risk of sliding down the banister, and the defendant did not assume responsibility for her safety. There was no defect in the premises, and no duty of care arose under common law or the Occupiers' Liability Acts. The claim fails as a matter of law.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed