The High Court dismissed Samantha Griffin’s personal injuries claim against Bellway Limited, trading as The Laurels, over a fall at the Clondalkin pub in December 2013. The court was not satisfied that she had proved, on the balance of probabilities, that liquid on the floor made it unsafe and caused her to slip.
Mr Justice Bernard J. Barton delivered judgment on 28 July 2017. The court found that the cause of the fall was more probably an interaction between Ms Griffin and another patron, combined with the effects of alcohol, than a wet floor. It did not determine whether the pub’s inspection and cleaning arrangements met its legal duties, because that issue arose only if a hazard caused the accident.
The fall was captured on CCTV, but a pillar obscured the moment it began. The footage showed Ms Griffin moving towards the other patron shortly before she fell backwards. The judge considered the movement more consistent with a push than the patron stepping away, while noting that the footage did not conclusively establish whether the floor was wet. The court also found that Ms Griffin had consumed a considerable quantity of alcohol with a significant inebriating effect.
Ms Griffin said she slipped and became aware that her skirt and underwear were wet. The judge accepted that she believed she had slipped, but found it most likely that drink from the glass she had been carrying spilled onto her clothing as she put her arms back to break her fall. Staff found no liquid on the floor after the accident, and the court accepted evidence that a supervisor had walked over the area within minutes without seeing a hazard. The judgment also noted that hospital records referred to a fall in high heels and alcohol consumption, but did not record a wet-floor slip.
The court heard that the original floor had been replaced during refurbishment in 2015, before engineers for both sides inspected it in 2016. They had not been told of the replacement. The judge said tests and opinions based on the replacement floor could not directly assist in determining the condition of the incident floor, and criticised the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the failure to provide that information. The court left consequential orders arising from that failure to be discussed with counsel.