The case of Kandaourava-v- Circle K explored the concept of ordinary and everyday dangers, and "usual dangers" which do not attract liability.
Background
- The plaintiff stopped at a petrol station and parked in a middle space of three parking bays on the garage forecourt with the intention of purchasing coffee and walking across the road to sit on a park bench.
- The three spaces were ‘bookended’ at the right extremity by a raised pavement, described as a ‘nib pavement’, bounded by standard concrete kerbstones. The space to her right was empty.
- After the plaintiff got her coffee, she walked to the back of her car intending to cross the road to the strand. When she came to the nib pavement, she tripped over the kerb and fell forward onto the ground.
- The accident was caught on CCTV which showed the sun was very low in the sky and the plaintiff was facing it wearing sunglasses as she walked. It was clear that she did not see the raised kerb immediately before she fell.
Outcomes
The plaintiff accepted in evidence that as she lived near-by she must have visited the station before and must have been aware of the nib pavement. Her case in the High Court was that she could not take the route to along the footpath in front of the store because it was blocked. The High Court judge found that the safe exit route was blocked by the defendant’s obstruction and amounted to negligence and breach of duty of care by the defendants towards the plaintiff.
The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal and argued there was no evidence before the High Court to suggest that the pavement nib was an unusual danger of a kind that attracted liability under the Occupier's Liability Act 1995. Justice Noonan was ultimately satisfied that there was no causal link between the obstruction of the footpath and the plaintiff’s accident. The court noted there was nothing to suggest that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff to provide a footpath at all, and accordingly, whether it was blocked or not was irrelevant.
This case clarifies the extent of the duty an occupier has in respect of ordinary and everyday dangers and follows a trajectory in Ireland whereby following recent reforms to the Occupier's Liability Act, courts are more willing to dismiss cases that do not concerns unusual dangers created by clear negligence and dereliction of duty.
