Black v. CB Richard Ellis Management Services Ltd [2006] ScotSC 7 (17 January 2006)

Black v. CB Richard Ellis Management Services Ltd [2006] ScotSC 7 (17 January 2006)

The defenders, as occupiers, knew of the recurring roof leaks and the dangerous condition of the tiles when wet. Their system of inspection and response was reactive and insufficient to address the known hazard. The defenders failed to take reasonable care to prevent injury, either by properly repairing the roof or by altering the flooring to prevent slipperiness. The pursuer is entitled to reparation for injury caused by the defenders' breach of statutory duty.

Citation
[2006] ScotSC 7
Parties
Pursuer: Linda Black; Defender: CB Richard Ellis Management Services Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury/reparation Action / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Judgment for the pursuer.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Breach of Statutory Duty, Reasonable Care, Slipping Accidents, Premises Liability, Causation, Res Ipsa Loquitur
Tort Occupiers' Liability Personal Injury Duty of Care Breach of Statutory Duty Reasonable Care Slipping Accidents Premises Liability +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 4 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linda Black

Pursuer

CB Richard Ellis Management Services Ltd

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury/reparation Action / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders breached their statutory duty under the Occupiers Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 by failing to take reasonable care to prevent injury from water ingress and slippery tiles.
  2. 2 Whether the system of inspection and maintenance was adequate to discharge the duty of care.
  3. 3 Whether the presence of water on the floor constituted prima facie evidence of negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders, as occupiers, knew of the recurring roof leaks and the dangerous condition of the tiles when wet. Their system of inspection and response was reactive and insufficient to address the known hazard. The defenders failed to take reasonable care to prevent injury, either by properly repairing the roof or by altering the flooring to prevent slipperiness. The pursuer is entitled to reparation for injury caused by the defenders' breach of statutory duty.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the pursuer.

Orders

  • Defenders to pay the pursuer £2,888.08 sterling with interest at 8% per annum from 16 August 2005 until payment.
  • All questions of expenses reserved for further hearing.