Geary v JD Wetherspoon Plc [2011] EWHC 1506 (QB) (14 June 2011)

A claimant who sustained a severe spinal injury after attempting to slide down a pub's bannister sued the occupier. The court found the pub was not liable, as the risk of falling was obvious and the claimant had voluntarily chosen to accept it.

Facts

The claimant, Ms Sarah Geary, was attending a post-work gathering at ‘The Union’, a JD Wetherspoon pub in Norwich. The pub featured a grand open staircase with low bannisters. At the end of the evening, in a moment she described as a ‘bit of fun’, Ms Geary decided to slide down the bannister. She lost her balance, fell backwards approximately four and a half metres onto a marble floor, and sustained a severe spinal cord injury resulting in tetraplegia. The claimant was not intoxicated at the time of the incident. She brought a claim against the pub operator under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.

Issues

The central legal issues before the High Court were:

• Whether the defendant, JD Wetherspoon Plc, had breached the common duty of care owed to the claimant as a lawful visitor under section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.
• Whether the danger arose from the state of the premises or from the claimant’s own actions.
• Whether the risk of injury was so obvious that no duty of care was owed in respect of it.
• Whether the defence of volenti non fit injuria (voluntary assumption of risk) applied to defeat the claim.

Judgment

Mr Justice Coulson dismissed the claim, finding in favour of the defendant, JD Wetherspoon Plc.

The Occupiers’ Duty of Care

The judge held that the duty under the 1957 Act is to take reasonable care to ensure a visitor is reasonably safe for the purposes for which they are invited to be there. The duty does not extend to protecting visitors from obvious risks they choose to run. The staircase itself was not defective or unsafe for its intended purpose of transit. The danger arose entirely from the claimant’s decision to use it in an improper and dangerous way.

Obvious Risk

The court emphasised that occupiers are not under a duty to protect against self-evident risks. Sliding down a bannister is a widely recognised dangerous activity. The judge stated that the responsibility for the accident lay with the claimant’s own actions in the face of an obvious danger, not with any failure by the occupier. In his reasoning, he noted:

People of all ages are known to slide down bannisters. It is a dangerous activity. But the fact that it is a dangerous activity, which is obviously dangerous, does not mean that the occupier is liable to an adult who chooses to undertake such an activity.

Coulson J concluded that requiring the defendant to prevent such an act, for example by installing ‘ski-slope’ nodules on the bannister, would not be a reasonable or proportionate measure.

Volenti Non Fit Injuria

Crucially, the court found that the defence of volenti non fit injuria was applicable. Ms Geary was aware of the risk she was taking. By her own admission, she undertook the act for ‘a bit of fun’. The judge determined that she had made a voluntary choice to run an obvious risk, and therefore could not hold the defendant liable for the consequences. The judge concluded decisively on this point:

In my judgment, the claimant is to be regarded as having chosen to run the risk; she was volens. I am therefore of the view that, if the defendant had been in breach of duty, the claim would in any event have been defeated by the application of the maxim volenti non fit injuria.

Contributory Negligence (Obiter)

Although it was not necessary given the finding of no liability, the judge commented that had the claim succeeded, he would have found the claimant’s contributory negligence to be ‘very high indeed’, suggesting a deduction of 60% or more from any damages.

Implications

The decision in Geary v JD Wetherspoon Plc is a significant authority in occupiers’ liability law. It reinforces the principle, also seen in cases like Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council, that personal autonomy and individual responsibility are key factors in determining liability. The judgment makes it clear that occupiers are not expected to be insurers against any and all harm that might befall a visitor. Where a risk is obvious and a person of full age and capacity freely chooses to engage with it, the law will generally not impose liability on the occupier for the resulting injuries. The case serves as a strong affirmation of the volenti non fit injuria defence in the context of obvious dangers created by a claimant’s own actions rather than the state of the premises.

Verdict: The claim was dismissed.

Source: Geary v JD Wetherspoon Plc [2011] EWHC 1506 (QB) (14 June 2011)