Supermarket customer injured in tripping accident successful on appeal

thanks to the maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur

In an earlier piece we highlighted a legal maxim that, when invoked properly, can turn what looks to be a very difficult personal injury case into a successful one. That maxim is Res Ipsa Loquitur. So what does it mean and how does it apply?

To succeed in an injury compensation claim on this basis the injured party must be able to prove in court that:

The thing that caused the damage was under the defender’s management/control.
The accident was of a type that does not usually occur if proper care is taken.

In addition, the defender must be unable to offer an explanation consistent with there being no fault on their part. It’s almost the notion that “the circumstances speak for themselves.”

The recent Sheriff Appeal Court decision in Tracy Thomson v Iceland Foods Ltd nicely illustrates its application. Ms Thomson had been shopping in an Iceland store in Alexandria, West Dunbartonshire. Towards the store exit, she tripped over the raised edge of a large mat. The incident was captured on the store’s CCTV. Photos of the mat taken by her partner revealed that its edge was raised, although the measurement was unknown. Ms Thomson was unable to prove how long it had been like that, and therefore whether Iceland knew or should have known about the defect.

In their written defence lodged with the court, Iceland stated that they had a system of inspection. But they chose not to lead any evidence to prove that was the case.

It was accepted that Iceland had exclusive occupation and control of the premises. The Appeal Court also held that the accident was of a type that just does not ordinarily happen, if reasonable care had been taken by them. So – both required elements mentioned above were present; the maxim applied and Ms Thomson was successful in recovering compensation of £9,500.

This is a very useful case. The facts were simple. But its success is down to the use of Res Ipsa Loquitur. Without it, Ms Thomson would have had to prove the defect was a foreseeable risk and that Iceland knew or should have known of its presence. This is an extremely useful but often overlooked maxim. Do the facts here speak for themselves in inferring negligence? If that is answered in the affirmative, the doctrine should be invoked.

Email Julie Harris
Call our personal injury claims team free on 0808 560 0872
Arrange a callback by using our enquiry form

Share this page

Share this page via:
Twitter | Facebook | Email

Return to the previous page

Call free: 0808 560 0872

Share this page via:
Twitter | Facebook | Email