We acted on behalf of a client who slipped on an icy pathway outside of his workplace premises during Covid-19 lockdown restrictions. The pathway had not been gritted or salted. Our client sustained a soft tissue injury to his ankle because of the slip and required assistance with self-care and household chores.
How we helped our client
Our client required private treatment, which resulted in the removal of their tooth.
A dental expert was tasked with examining the client and records to confirm whether the treating dentist should have done more. The expert concluded that had a diagnosis been made earlier, the tooth could have on balance been saved via root canal treatment.
Liability was firmly refuted with the Defender’s alleging that in any event, the tooth would have been lost.
Settlement
Our client’s claim was subsequently settled for £3,500 by way of negotiation with the at fault dental practice.
Accordingly, we were able to obtain a settlement that our client was happy with which covered the costs of the private treatment, settle their claim swiftly and without the need for litigation.
The claim was pursued against both his employer and the landlord who let the premises. The claim against his employer was based on their duty of care to provide him with a safe place of work. The claim against the landlord, as occupier, was based on their statutory duty to take reasonable care for persons entering the premises. In terms of the lease, the landlord was also responsible for maintenance.
How we helped our client
We raised a Court action against both the employer and the landlord. The employer denied liability, arguing that maintenance, including gritting during icy conditions, were the landlord’s responsibility. The landlord denied liability as the offices were shut due to lockdown and they were not notified that our client would be attending the premises.
We obtained an expert report from a weather expert which concluded that the weather conditions meant that the formation of ice was foreseeable. We argued that proactive measures therefore ought to have been taken to reduce the risk of slipping on the pathway. Thus, the employer and/or the landlord had not reduced the risk of slipping to an acceptable level.
We obtained medical evidence from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon which detailed the prognosis of our client’s injury, along with the impact that it had on his ability to perform daily tasks.
Settlement
We were able to achieve £2,500 for all our client’s head of claim which was agreed on a split basis between both the employer and the occupier. This case underscores the importance of employers and occupiers taking proactive measures to prevent accidents, especially in adverse weather conditions. This was an excellent outcome in a case where liability was consistently denied.
