The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by a woman who was injured in a fall at a County Waterford caravan park, leaving in place the trial judge’s dismissal of her claim against the park’s occupiers.
The woman, identified in the judgment as Mrs White, was 73 when she fell on 3 May 2010. She had walked from her mobile home towards the toilet and shower block at Woodstown Caravan Park. Her evidence, accepted by the trial judge, was that her toe caught on something between two mobile homes, causing her to lose her balance and fall against the block. She suffered a serious injury to her left arm.
Her claim alleged that the ground near the block was uneven and had protruding stones. The trial judge found that it was an uneven grassy area with indentations, where some stones were embedded in the grass and small loose stones might be present in worn patches. The judge did not accept that photographs showing larger stones established the type of ground at the accident site: the photographs’ location was uncertain, and no witness identified the depicted ground as the place where Mrs White fell.
The appeal focused in part on whether the trial judge had wrongly assessed the ground as a “hazard” and whether a commercial caravan park required a different standard of care. Mrs White’s counsel also relied on the photographs as evidence that larger stones were in the general area. The respondents argued that the trial judge made no error of law or fact.
The Court of Appeal said there was evidence supporting the trial judge’s finding that the location and condition of the ground shown in the photographs were too uncertain to establish the surface where the fall occurred. It therefore accepted the trial judge’s factual findings. The court also rejected the argument that the judge had applied the wrong legal test by using the word “hazard”, noting that the judge had considered whether the stones amounted to a danger and whether the occupiers had breached their duty even if they did.
Under section 3 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1995, the duty is to take reasonable care in the circumstances, including having regard to the care visitors may reasonably be expected to take for their own safety. The appeal court said uneven ground was to be expected in the caravan park’s naturalistic setting and found no basis, on the facts found at trial, to treat the surface as an unusual danger. It concluded that the trial judge had not erred in finding no breach of the common duty of care.
The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal did not make a new damages award; the trial judge’s rejection of the claim remained in place.