Judge Weeds Out Claim

Article

30 January, 2015

Millet v The Riverside Group Ltd

Liverpool County Court - Recorder Yip QC

The Claimant brought a claim for personal injuries after he slipped whilst carrying a recycling box in the yard at the rear of the property he rented from the Defendant. It was alleged that the presence of weeds in the yard caused the Claimant to fall.

At trial, the Judge found that there was no case to answer. The Judge was of the view that the weed was not of a sort to cause a fall. Despite the Claimant alleging that he had previously reported the problem on more than one occasion, no record of any complaint could be found. The problem was not known to the Defendant and therefore the Defendant was not in breach of duty.

The Judge also found that during the cross examination the Claimant was not clear about the happening of the accident. The Claimant did not have a recollection of how he fell. He didn't recall the mechanics of the fall and he could not give a clear account of how he fell. The Claimant did not establish that the cause of his accident was the weed. The claim was dismissed the Defendant awarded its costs.

Forbes Comment

The Judge found that there was no case to answer, the Defendant therefore did not need to present its evidence. Where the Claimant is unclear about the cause and the mechanics of the accident, then putting the Claimant to proof under rigorous cross examination can produce positive results for the Defendant.

For further advice, please contact Jessica Wynne on jessica.wynne@forbessolicitors.co.uk or on 01254 222444

Back

Make an enquiry