Introduction

The case Juj v John Lewis Partnership PLC ([2023] EWCA Civ 1507) was heard by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on December 21, 2023. The claimant, an 83-year-old individual, sought damages for personal injuries sustained from a fall in a car park adjacent to a Waitrose store in Ruislip. The incident occurred on May 17, 2015, when the claimant tripped on a kerb next to a disabled parking bay, resulting in head injuries and long-term sequelae. The central issue revolved around whether the defendant, John Lewis Partnership PLC (operating as Waitrose), breached its duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 by failing to ensure the safety of the premises.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the initial decision by Ellenbogen J and HHJ Backhouse, dismissing the claimant's appeal. The court concluded that while the defendant had some level of control over the car park as an occupier alongside the London Borough of Hillingdon, its duty was limited to addressing immediate hazards and reporting concerns to the local authority. The claimant's fall was deemed a genuine accident, not caused by any breach of duty on the part of the defendant. The court found that the kerb was clearly visible, and the claimant was aware of its presence, mitigating any assertions that the defendant failed to warn of an obvious danger.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced seminal cases that define occupiers' liability:

• Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] AC 552: Set the foundational duty of occupiers to ensure premises are reasonably safe.
• Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232: Emphasized the need for logical reasoning in judicial decisions regarding negligence.
• Tomlinson v Congleton BC [2004] 1 AC 46: Addressed the extent of duties under obvious risks.
• Edwards v Sutton [2016] EWCA Civ 1005: Explored the application of occupiers' liability in specific contexts.
• White Lion Hotel v James [2021] EWCA Civ 31: Discussed risk assessment obligations under the Occupiers' Liability Act.
• Staechelin & others v ACLBDD Holdings Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 817: Affirmed appellate courts' restraint in altering trial judges' factual findings.
• Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5: Reinforced the limited role of appellate courts in reviewing factual determinations.
• McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58: Highlighted the high threshold for appellate interference in factual findings.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied the principles established in the aforementioned precedents to determine the extent of the defendant's duty of care. Central to the reasoning was whether the defendant had sufficient control over the car park to be deemed an occupier under Section 2 of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. The court concluded that the defendant's control was limited to immediate hazard management and reporting, without authority over long-term changes or structural modifications. The visibility of the kerb and the claimant's awareness of it played a critical role in negating any breach of duty. Additionally, the court emphasized that not all foreseeable risks compel occupiers to take action, especially when dangers are obvious and do not necessitate further warnings or alterations.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the boundaries of occupiers' liability, particularly in commercial settings shared with local authorities. It clarifies that occupiers are not liable for dangers that are obvious and that fall outside their control, even if they share responsibility with other entities. The decision underscores the importance of clear risk assessments and the practical limitations of occupiers in modifying premises. Future cases will likely reference this judgment when delineating the scope of duties for occupiers with shared or limited control over premises.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Occupiers' Liability Act 1957

A key piece of legislation that outlines the duty care owed by occupiers (those who control premises) to visitors. It stipulates that occupiers must ensure their premises are safe for use, barring any risks that are obvious to visitors.

Duty of Care

The legal obligation to avoid causing harm or injury to others. In the context of occupiers' liability, it refers to the responsibility to maintain safe premises.

Reasonable Care

The standard of care that a typical person would exercise in similar circumstances. It involves taking precautions that are sensible and proportionate to the potential risk.

Control

Refers to the degree of authority or influence an occupier has over the premises. Greater control can expand the scope of duty owed to visitors.

Precedent

A legal case that serves as an example or authority for deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.

Conclusion

The Juj v John Lewis Partnership PLC judgment serves as a pivotal reference in delineating the extents of an occupier's liability under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. By affirming that occupiers are not responsible for obvious dangers beyond their control, the court provides clear guidance on the boundaries of duty of care. This decision emphasizes the necessity for occupiers to conduct thorough risk assessments while acknowledging practical limits in their capacity to mitigate all potential hazards. Consequently, this judgment will inform future litigations involving occupiers' liability, particularly in environments where multiple parties share control over premises.