Sara Turnball v Neilson Active Holidays Ltd

Sara Turnball v Neilson Active Holidays Ltd

The defendant breached its duty of care by failing to install a dampener or otherwise modify the fridge lid to mitigate a clear and foreseeable risk of serious injury, despite the ubiquity of the design and the presence of warning signs. Warning signs and safety induction were inadequate control mechanisms. The claimant was contributorily negligent for failing to operate the fridge correctly, warranting a 30% reduction in damages.

Parties
Claimant: Sara Turnball; Defendant: Neilson Active Holidays Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Contract / Negligence / Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Liability established against defendant, subject to 30% reduction for contributory negligence; no finding of fundamental dishonesty.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Local Standards, Risk Assessment, Contributory Negligence, Fundamental Dishonesty, Package Travel Regulations
Tort Contract Personal Injury Travel Law Duty of Care Local Standards Risk Assessment Contributory Negligence +2 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sara Turnball

Claimant

Neilson Active Holidays Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Contract / Negligence / Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant failed to exercise reasonable skill and care in provision of the yacht fridge
  2. 2 Whether local safety standards were breached
  3. 3 Whether the fridge lid was inherently unsafe by design

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant breached its duty of care by failing to install a dampener or otherwise modify the fridge lid to mitigate a clear and foreseeable risk of serious injury, despite the ubiquity of the design and the presence of warning signs. Warning signs and safety induction were inadequate control mechanisms. The claimant was contributorily negligent for failing to operate the fridge correctly, warranting a 30% reduction in damages.

Court Disposition

Liability established against defendant, subject to 30% reduction for contributory negligence; no finding of fundamental dishonesty.

Orders

  • Defendant found liable for breach of duty of care in provision of fridge lid.
  • Claimant's damages to be reduced by 30% for contributory negligence.