Key Case | Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell (2016) | Occupiers Liability – Adult Visitors

In respect of adult visitors, the common duty of care does not extend to prevent everyday slips and trips, nor does the duty require occupiers to maintain their premises in a perfect and risk-free state, the duty only arises when there is present a risk which creates a ‘real source of danger’.

CASE SUMMARY

Claimant: Debell

Defendant: Rochester Cathedral

Facts: The claimant and his wife were walking within the precinct of Rochester Cathedral. The claimant passed through a gap between a wall and a bollard and fell over concrete which was raised around one inch above the road surface, following an earlier collision with a car. The claimant suffered a shoulder injury and hernia, his wife had passed through uninjured immediately before.

Outcome: Not Liable

Legal principle: The common duty of care in occupiers’ liability extends to requiring occupiers to remove dangers which have materialised, even though the occupier did not cause them. This case involved tripping along a pathway. Tripping, slipping and falling are everyday occurrences on the roads and pavements. No highway authority or occupier of premises like the Cathedral in this case could possibly ensure that the roads or the precincts around a building were maintained in a pristine state. Even if they were, accidents would still happen; it is part of the human condition. The obligation on the occupier is to make the land reasonably safe for visitors, not to guarantee their safety. When determining if a duty extends to a particular danger, the courts should consider was it something more than the everyday risk which pedestrians inevitably face from normal blemishes? The duty only arises when there is present a risk which creates a ‘real source of danger’.