Council wins appeal over compensation to claimant injured in public park

The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by a local authority after a High Court judge ordered that it should pay compensation to a claimant injured in a public park.

In Edwards v London Borough of Sutton [2016] EWCA Civ 1005 on 10 September 2010 Christopher Edwards had fallen from a small ornamental footbridge in a park owned by Sutton Council, and sustained serious injury. The cause of his fall was not ascertained.

Judge Gore QC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, found Sutton to be primarily liable for breach of the common duty of care arising under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. The judge found Edwards to have been contributorily negligent in the accident to the extent of 40%.

Zurich Municipal, the council’s insurer, instructed law firm Clyde & Co. to appeal.

Edwards, who was 64 at the time of the incident, argued that Sutton had failed to take reasonable care to see that he as a visitor to the park was safe in using the bridge for a purpose for which he was permitted to use it. He said the council should have provided side protection barriers to the bridge of 1.1 metres in height.

The claimant also argued that Sutton had failed to warn visitors to the park of the dangers posed by the bridge, and that the council had failed to carry out any, or any adequate risk assessments in respect of the bridge.

Sutton argued that there had been no breach of duty. It said there had been no obligation to construct side barriers, nor was there any obligation to warn as to the use of the bridge whose state and construction were obvious. The council also said no risk assessment would have prevented the accident.

The Court of Appeal, with Lord Justice McCombe giving the judgment, allowed the council’s appeal.

Lord Justice McCombe said: “Mr Edwards has suffered injury which can evoke nothing but the most enormous sympathy. However, in line with the authority which I have endeavoured to cite, I find myself in agreement with Mr Warnock's final submission in opening Sutton's appeal that not every accident (even if it has serious consequences) has to have been the fault of another; and an occupier is not an insurer against injuries sustained on his premises.

“In my judgment, like the court in Staples' case, I think that the standard was set too high by the judge below and I would allow this appeal and would dismiss the cross appeal.

John Latter, Technical Claims Director at Zurich, said: “This decision is a victory for common sense. It was gratifying to see the judgement challenged and a local authority spared of financial pay-out it was not liable for – this decision will go a long way to protect already stretched council budgets.

“When an unfortunate accident occurs there isn't always someone else to blame, indeed, from a liability point of view local authorities or occupiers of land should not always be held responsible for accidents befalling visitors – individuals must make their own informed judgements. In this case, the utilising of unnecessary, cost prohibitive and unsightly warning signs may not even have prevented what was ultimately no more than an unfortunate accident.”

Nigel Adams, Partner at Clyde & Co LLP, said: “Our appeal was heard before Lady Justice Arden, Lord Justice Lewison and Lord Justice McCombe and the judgment to allow our appeal was unanimous. Although tragic for Mr Edwards this is an entirely right and proper decision.”