Geary v JD Wetherspoon Plc

Factual and Procedural Background

The case concerns an incident on the evening of 29 March 2007 at The Union Rooms, a public house in The City owned and operated by the Defendant. The premises featured a grand open staircase with low banisters that had been preserved during refurbishment due to its listed status. The Plaintiff, after drinking with colleagues, chose to slide down the left banister of the staircase, fell backwards, and sustained a spinal fracture resulting in tetraplegia.

The Plaintiff issued proceedings in March 2010, claiming damages principally for negligence, alleging breach of a common law duty of care and alternatively under the Occupiers' Liability Acts 1957 and 1984. The trial on liability occurred over two days in May 2011. The central dispute concerned whether the Defendant owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff, focusing on whether the Plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk and whether the Defendant assumed responsibility for the Plaintiff’s safety.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff voluntarily assumed an obvious and inherent risk which negated any liability on the part of the Defendant.
2. Whether the Defendant assumed a responsibility towards the Plaintiff, thereby giving rise to a duty of care.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff voluntarily assumed the obvious risk inherent in sliding down the low banisters with a dangerous drop, negating liability.
• The Defendant did not assume any responsibility towards the Plaintiff that would give rise to a duty of care.
• The risk was foreseeable and foreseen, but foreseeability alone does not create a duty to protect from self-inflicted harm.
• The banisters were not defective; the low height was a result of a lawful waiver during listed building refurbishment.
• The Defendant took reasonable steps to prevent sliding, including warnings and later physical alterations after further incidents.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant owed a duty of care under common law and the Occupiers' Liability Acts.
• The Plaintiff argued that the three-part Caparo test (foreseeability, proximity, fairness) was satisfied.
• The Plaintiff disputed that voluntary assumption of risk barred the claim, contending that the Defendant had assumed responsibility.
• Relied on the Defendant's management obligations and proximity arising from occupier status.
• Attempted to distinguish key authorities relied on by the Defendant.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by reaffirming the traditional distinction in occupiers' liability between lawful visitors and trespassers, emphasizing the limited duty owed to those voluntarily accepting obvious risks. The Plaintiff’s candid admission that she knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk of sliding down the banisters, which had an unprotected drop, was critical.

Applying the statutory provisions in the Occupiers Liability Acts 1957 and 1984, which mirror the common law principle of volenti non fit injuria, the Court held that the Defendant owed no duty to protect the Plaintiff from risks she willingly accepted.

The Court extensively reviewed relevant authorities, notably Tomlinson and Poppleton, to conclude that a voluntary and informed assumption of risk by the Plaintiff barred recovery unless the Defendant had assumed a specific responsibility towards her.

On the issue of assumption of responsibility, the Court analyzed authorities where such duties arose from specific facts involving reliance or voluntary undertaking of care by the Defendant. Here, no such assumption or reliance was found. The Defendant had not organized or encouraged sliding, nor had it assumed responsibility to prevent the Plaintiff’s conduct beyond reasonable warnings and later minor physical alterations.

Further, the Court rejected the Plaintiff’s contention that the low height of the banisters constituted a defect causing danger. The low banisters were a lawful and deliberate feature preserved under listed building consent, with a waiver from building regulations, and did not create a danger independent of the Plaintiff’s choice to slide.

The Court distinguished the present case from Everett v Comojo, emphasizing that the duty there arose from protecting guests against third-party violence, not from preventing self-inflicted injury.

Regarding the Caparo test, the Court found foreseeability satisfied but rejected proximity and the fairness, justice and reasonableness criteria necessary to impose a duty of care in these circumstances.

In sum, the Court concluded that no duty of care was owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, and even if one existed, the Plaintiff’s voluntary assumption of risk barred liability.

Holding and Implications

The Court held that the claim against the Defendant must FAIL due to the Plaintiff’s voluntary assumption of an obvious and inherent risk and the absence of any relevant assumption of responsibility by the Defendant.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for personal injury arising from the fall is dismissed. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the decision applies well-established principles regarding voluntary assumption of risk and the scope of occupiers’ liability. The ruling underscores that occupiers are not required to protect visitors from risks they knowingly and freely accept, absent a special assumption of responsibility.