Ramping up the problems

We have heard a great deal about personal accident lawyers and claims firms recently. The pub and hospitality industries have more than their fair share of potential claimants, for anything from a dodgy meal to a loose carpet. Often, traders or their insurers find it cheaper to settle and the claims industry knows this and plays on it.

But once in a while a case comes up that goes the other way and shows that not all judges are entirely sympathetic to the concept that the premises operator is bound to be guilty.

It involved a disabled guest using the bar area at a holiday park in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, but it could equally well apply to many open-plan, split-level bars anywhere.

In common with many establishments, this bar had sitting areas at different levels, between which were both a ramp and a set of steps, each in different places. The claimant used the ramp in her electric wheelchair to get up to the service level, but when she came to move down again, she chose a step, tipped forward and sustained injuries.

The original county court judge found against the operators, Bourne Leisure, but the Court of Appeal decided he had been wrongly influenced on the safety aspects by taking account of the reported attitude of the claimant (who did not appear as a witness in the County Court) and the leisure-centre manager.

He should have reached his own decision on the facts. But fortunately, instead of merely overturning the lower court's decision, the Court of Appeal made its own judgement.

This they did concisely and with regard to photos of the premises supplied throughout the two hearings. This showed that the step on which the accident occurred was a single step down to the second level from a hard wood floor on to a level carpeted area in which there were tables and chairs. This furniture was all horizontal, and the step was at least 5ft wide, with a rubber and metal 'nose'. It was, said the Appeal Court, obvious and apparent that there was a difference in level between the wooden floor of the upper level and the small seating area on the intermediate level. "No-one looking at that scene could possibly think he or she was approaching a sloping ramp."

I am sure there was great relief when the original decision was overturned, and when the court also declared the law required only that visitors should be 'reasonably safe' rather than completely safe and protected from all potential hazards, however remote. But of course, it should act as a warning to everyone running this type of premises that the next decision could go the other way if the facts were slightly different.

It is all very well thinking you have complied with disability legislation by putting in a ramp, for example. But you still have to be conscious that even if you are 'wheelchair-user friendly' this means you have to guard against other hazards if they are now able to access parts they could not before.

Clear marking of steps and some form of markers on plate glass are two essential elements to ensure safety not only for disabled customers but also those with sight impairment.

There will still be accidents in pubs from time to time, but the lesson to be learnt from this case is that you should continue to monitor compliance with safety requirements and insist on reports of any incident, however trivial.