Drysdale v Hedges [2012] EWHC B20 (QB) (27 July 2012)

Drysdale v Hedges [2012] EWHC B20 (QB) (27 July 2012)

The Defendant landlord was not liable under Section 2 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 or Section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, nor for breach of the repairing covenant, as the steps and wall were not out of repair and the duty to repair does not extend to making safe inherent design features. However, the Defendant was liable at common law for negligently painting the steps with a product that increased the risk of slipping, as this was a positive act undertaken after acquisition, creating a foreseeable risk of injury to the Claimant.

Citation
[2012] EWHC B20 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Claimant (unnamed, female, aged 40 at accident); Defendant: Joanne Hedges
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim (civil) / Trial of Liability
Outcome
Defendant held liable at common law for negligence in painting steps; not liable under statutory or contractual duties.
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability, Defective Premises Act 1972, Common Law Negligence, Landlord's Duty of Care, Personal Injury, Repairing Covenant
Tort Law Landlord and Tenant Law Occupiers' Liability Defective Premises Act 1972 Common Law Negligence Landlord's Duty of Care Personal Injury Repairing Covenant

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant (unnamed, female, aged 40 at accident)

Claimant

Joanne Hedges

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim (civil) / Trial of Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant landlord breached a duty of care to the Claimant under Section 2 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957, Section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, the repairing covenant in the tenancy agreement, or at common law, by failing to provide safe steps and adequate guarding against a dangerous drop.

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant landlord was not liable under Section 2 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 or Section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, nor for breach of the repairing covenant, as the steps and wall were not out of repair and the duty to repair does not extend to making safe inherent design features. However, the Defendant was liable at common law for negligently painting the steps with a product that increased the risk of slipping, as this was a positive act undertaken after acquisition, creating a foreseeable risk of injury to the Claimant.

Court Disposition

Defendant held liable at common law for negligence in painting steps; not liable under statutory or contractual duties.

Orders

  • Judgment for the Claimant on common law negligence in respect of painting the steps.
  • Claim under Occupiers Liability Act 1957, Defective Premises Act 1972, and repairing covenant dismissed.