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

Mrs Geary sustained tetraplegia after sliding down banisters in a pub and falling backwards onto the marble floor below. She sued the pub owners for negligence. The court held that she had voluntarily assumed an obvious and inherent risk, and the defendant owed no duty to protect her from her own freely chosen dangerous conduct.

Facts

On 29 March 2007, Mrs Ruth Geary was drinking with work colleagues at The Union Rooms, a pub in Newcastle owned by JD Wetherspoon Plc. The premises, a former gentleman’s club, featured a grand open staircase with sweeping banisters that were lower than normal building regulation heights (86-88cm rather than the recommended 1100mm). During the evening, Mrs Geary discussed the Mary Poppins film and the possibility of sliding down the banisters. When leaving, she hoisted herself onto the banister intending to slide down, but fell backwards approximately 3.45 metres onto the marble floor below. She sustained a burst fracture of the fifth cervical vertebrae resulting in complete tetraplegia.

Previous Incidents

Prior to this accident, there had been several recorded incidents of customers sliding down the banisters and injuring themselves. The defendant’s employees had occasionally stopped customers attempting to slide and had considered but rejected putting up warning signs, concluding this might attract more people to try sliding.

Issues

The key legal issues were:

• Whether there was a voluntary assumption of an obvious and inherent risk by the claimant which would negate any liability
• Whether the defendant had assumed any responsibility towards the claimant that would give rise to a duty of care

Judgment

Mr Justice Coulson dismissed the claim, finding that the defendant owed no duty of care to the claimant.

Voluntary Assumption of Risk

The claimant gave candid evidence, accepting that sliding down banisters carried an obvious risk of falling off, responding with “absolutely” when this was put to her. The court found she had voluntarily accepted the obvious risk inherent in sliding down these banisters.

The judge applied the principles from Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2004] 1 AC 46, where Lord Hoffmann stated:

“I think it will be extremely rare for an occupier of land to be under a duty to prevent people from taking risks which are inherent in the activities they freely choose to undertake upon the land. If people want to climb mountains, go hand-gliding or swim or dive in ponds or lakes, that is their affair.”

The court concluded that the claimant freely chose to do something she knew to be dangerous, with some degree of pre-planning evident from the Mary Poppins conversations. She was therefore the author of her own misfortune.

No Assumption of Responsibility

The court found no relevant assumption of responsibility by the defendant. There were no specific facts suggesting voluntary assumption of responsibility, and no evidence of reliance by the claimant on the defendant. The premises were not unsafe; the danger was created by the decision to slide, not by the banister itself. Even if the banister had been at normal height, the claimant would probably have chosen to slide anyway, being attracted by the style of the staircase rather than its height.

Implications

This case reinforces the principle that occupiers are not liable for injuries sustained by visitors who voluntarily assume obvious and inherent risks. Adults who make genuine and informed choices to engage in dangerous activities cannot recover damages when those risks materialise. The judgment emphasises the importance of personal responsibility and confirms that foreseeability of harm alone does not create a duty of care, particularly where that duty would be to protect claimants from their own foolish conduct. The case provides important guidance on the limits of occupiers’ liability where visitors choose to use premises in unintended and obviously dangerous ways.

Verdict: The claim was dismissed. The defendant owed no duty of care to the claimant. The claimant had voluntarily assumed an obvious and inherent risk, and there was no assumption of responsibility by the defendant that could give rise to a duty to protect her from the consequences of her own freely chosen dangerous actions.

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