Piccolo v Larkstock Ltd (t/a Chiltern Flowers & Ors)

Piccolo v Larkstock Ltd (t/a Chiltern Flowers & Ors)

The judge was entitled to find that the claimant was not contributorily negligent and that the second defendant's staged approach to enforcement was reasonable in the circumstances. There was no realistic prospect of the Court of Appeal finding otherwise.

Parties
Appellant: Piccolo; First Respondent: Larkstock Limited t/a Chiltern Flowers; Second Respondent: Chiltern Railways
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Duty of Care, Occupiers Liability Act
Tort Law Occupiers' Liability Negligence Contributory Negligence Duty of Care Occupiers Liability Act

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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Piccolo

Appellant

Larkstock Limited t/a Chiltern Flowers

First Respondent

Chiltern Railways

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was contributorily negligent for not looking at his feet while walking near the flower stall
  2. 2 Whether the second defendant (Chiltern Railways) breached its duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act by not taking stricter action against the first defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find that the claimant was not contributorily negligent and that the second defendant's staged approach to enforcement was reasonable in the circumstances. There was no realistic prospect of the Court of Appeal finding otherwise.

Court Disposition

Applications refused