British Toilet Association: Archived News from the British Toilet Association 

Public conveniences Court Case – Wet floor

Gardner v (1) Norfolk County Council, (2) Great Yarmouth Borough Council, 26.10.10, Norwich County Court

In August 2006 when leaving the gentlemen’s public toilets at a shopping centre in Great Yarmouth, the claimant slipped on the floor, fracturing his left wrist. He claimed damages from the defendants, alleging the first defendant, D1, was responsible for cleaning and maintaining the toilets and the second defendant, D2, was responsible as owner/occupier. He alleged negligence in failing to warn him of the slippery floor and/or failing to reduce the risk of slipping, and allowing there to be a marble-tiled floor, with a small mat, at the entrance to the toilets.

The second defendant delegated its cleaning and maintenance of the toilets to D1 who used contractors for this work. D2 denied the flooring was defective or excessively slippery when wet and argued the accident was caused by the D1’s negligence or the negligence of the contractors.

The court noted the claimant said he went back into the toilets after falling, to find an attendant. However, the letter from his solicitors 11 days after the accident said he did not try to find an attendant. The judge accepted he did try.

The judge also accepted the claimant fell where he said he did and that the floor was visibly wet. The claimant’s sister, present at the time of the accident, gave evidence that the floor was wet. It had been raining heavily on the day but the judge held the available sign warning against slipping was not in the vicinity of the entrance. There are, though, highly visible warning signs fixed to the walls at the entrance but the claimant said he did not read them.

The judge said the toilets were tired and run down and it was clear it had been raining heavily. The floor had a smooth, washable surface which was easier to clean than a rough surface that would not be slippery when wet. The attendant was present and mopped up as needed.

The judge rejected the argument that D2 should have replaced the floor. There had not been any other slipping injuries reported to the attendant on duty at the time, in his 21 years working at this site. Further D2 was not, as occupier, under a duty to have carried out a risk assessment. D1 had taken reasonable care to ensure visitors were reasonably safe, having placed a mat at the entrance, warning signs on the walls, and arranging for an attendant to be present most of the time. The claim was dismissed.

Although this claim failed, the judge said he had “no doubt” the entrance to these public toilets would be reviewed. However, the defendants had taken all reasonable care in the circumstances. Although the premises were “tired and run down”, adults would have known what sort of building they were entering, it was abundantly clear it had been raining and warning signs were fixed to the wall at the entrance.

4 April 2011