Cheryl Sandra Seppings v Crampsie & Son Ltd t/a The New Inn Roughton

The Background

On the 3rd July 2021 the claimant was at The New Inn, Roughton working as a barmaid in the employ of the defendant. At some point between 6:30pm and 7:00pm whilst walking from the restaurant to bar through a tiled hallway the claimant fell sustaining injury to her left wrist.

The claimant seeks damages for the injuries and losses sustained as a result of the accident. It is the claimant’s case that the defendant failed in their duty of care to ensure she was safe whilst she was a lawful visitor to the site. In particular the claimant says the defendant did not provide a safe system of work, carried out no risk assessments, provided no appropriate training, had no or insufficient cleaning policies or procedures with regards spillages, rainwater, regular cleaning, or otherwise, had no process of inspecting the floor to ensure it was free from hazards, provided no warning that the floor was slippery, and that there were insufficient staff on duty to work the front of house so as to allow her to work safely.

The defendant denies liability. It is the defendant’s case that the claimant was kept reasonably safe in her place of work and that the defendant had a clean as you go policy which was adequate in the circumstances. Further, it is denied that the claimant’s accident was caused by any breach of duty or negligence on the part of the defendant and that there was no hazard present such as to pose a danger or risk to the claimant. It is the defendant’s case that the tiles were not slippery when dry and clean, and that there was no state of affairs on the floor which would have caused the claimant to lose her footing. The defendant has put the claimant to proof to establish the precise circumstances of her alleged accident.

The matter was listed before me for a two-day trial to determine liability only. I heard evidence from Cheryl Seppings the claimant, Mr John Crampsie the publican for the defendant pub which is owned by Punch Taverns, and Amanda Lawn, an employee of the defendant. There was also a written statement from Mrs Bee Hua Crampsie, but she was not called as a witness and her statement added nothing of value to the evidence before me. I should explain that Mrs Hua Crampsie is better known as Tina and Mr John Crampsie is also known as Shaun. His name interchanged at various times in the evidence. I have seen photographs of the scene of the accident, some medical records, an Accident Report Form, Booking Diary pages from the premises, and Sample Roster Sheets.

I will not repeat all of the evidence put before the court but will address only those matters relevant to my decision.

For medical reasons the claimant did not attend the trial in person but gave evidence remotely by CVP. Her evidence was clear and for the most part consistent with her witness statement. Any discrepancies between her oral testimony and written statement were of little concern and related to estimations of times and numbers. I am satisfied the claimant was doing her best to provide a fair and honest account of events as she perceived them to the court.

The claimant explained that she started working for the defendant in 2015. The pub was run by Mr. John Crampsie and his wife Tina. The claimant accepted she had prior experience working in pubs and was familiar with the running of them as she had been “brought up in pubs”. She denied having received any specific training or having been given any specific instructions in relation to day-to-day duties but, having been employed there some 6 and a half years prior to the accident, admitted she was “familiar with the operation of the establishment”. She acknowledged she knew where the mops, buckets, blue roll, and yellow warning signs were all located. She knew to keep an eye out for spillages on the floor. She also knew that if she identified a spillage, she would mop it up if she had time. She also knew the yellow “wet floor A-board” sign should be used if the floor was identified as being wet, for example if it had been raining outside or if the floor had just been mopped. Again, the claimant stated she would do this if time allowed but said it was not in her job description.

On the day in question the claimant was working a split shift. Having worked 12.00pm - 3.00pm the claimant left the premises before returning to start a second shift at 5.00pm, expecting to finish at closing time. She expected the pub to close around 10.00pm due to Covid restrictions but because the pub was showing the England football game the pub she said was busier than usual. She said she was the only member of staff serving what she estimated to be 100 people in the pub, 40 being in the restaurant, 30 in the bar, and 30 more in the barn. John and Tina were said to be working in the kitchen. There was another employee on site, Abbey Fuller, but she was underage so was only working in the kitchen cleaning dishes.

The claimant was adamant that the pub was busy and had approximately 100 people in it at the time in question. When in cross examination it was put to her that this was inconsistent with the booking diary, she insisted the diary was wrong and that despite Covid controls being in place. She said these restrictions were being ignored on the evening in question and additional members of the public were admitted to the pub despite having not pre-booked. The claimant said the booking diary only showed those people who had booked a table to eat and did not show the numbers of people allowed entry to stand in the bar and watch the football while drinking, nor did it identify people who had made a booking using their phones. Under cross examination the claimant also said people were eating at different times as they just walked in and out. Under cross examination she accepted however that there were still Covid restrictions in pace and that John was generally diligent.

In terms of the accident itself the claimant’s evidence was vague and brief. She described walking from the restaurant through the long hallway into the area behind the bar. She stated, “you walk through the entrance where there is a mat, then the tiled hallway area, before you go through the bar on the right-hand side and the restaurant ahead.” She describes taking two steps in towards the bar area when she slipped and fell. In her written statement the claimant stated she was unable to recall which foot slipped but she “hit her left arm into the bar door and my left wrist snapped backwards. When I fell on the floor my wrist twisted around”.

Under cross examination the claimant said she had turned left and was facing the bar before she fell. She was unable to describe what caused her to fall and could only say “I slipped is all I know ... there must have been something on the floor … it happened so fast ... there must have been something on the floor to make me slip”. At no point before or after the accident does the claimant identify any debris or spillage on the floor of the area in question. She stated she had not noticed any rain before the accident and stated the wet floor sign was not out at the time. The claimant only noticed the wet floor sign being out when she returned to the pub after attending hospital, by which time she stated it was raining.

The claimant disputed the account of the accident circumstances provided in the accident book entry which records the claimant’s “foot gave way” and that the claimant was not wearing non-slip shoes. She pointed out that she was not present when that was completed. When asked if she hit the wall or the door she responded by saying it was the bar door. However, on re-examination the claimant was insistent that her hand hit the floor before hitting the bar door after she had “slipped forwards”.

The claimant maintained that following the accident Mr Crampsie did not check the floor where the claimant fell and that he could not have done so because “he was stood in front of me”.

Finally, the claimant stated that her footwear was not responsible for her fall. The claimant stated she was wearing a pair of Sketchers trainers she had bought 7 days prior to the accident and that they had a rubber sole and good grip. She denied blaming the accident on her shoes at the time and denied saying her shoes were not non-slip. Whilst the claimant admitted returning her shoes to the store from where they were purchased shortly after the accident she stated she returned them not because they were not non-slip but rather because she could not tie the laces as her hand and arm were in a plaster cast.

Mr Crampsie was a little defensive during cross examination. This is not unusual for a witness in High Court proceedings and did not cause me to doubt his integrity or that he was seeking to give his genuine account of events to assist the court.

Mr Crampsie was the Publican at the New Inn at the material time. He retired when the lease expired in July 2025 but had held the position for over 25years before then. He described himself as having a “roving role within the Pub” placing himself wherever needed. He said his wife, Tina, was based in the kitchen and was Head Chef.

His statement provides very little detail by way of Health and Safety information. The only information provided in this regard is at paragraph 17 of his statement where he states:

Mr Crampsie agrees that there was a football match showing in the pub on the evening of the accident, and that the claimant fell approximately one hour before kick-off. He disputed the claimant’s account that there were 100 people in the pub at the time. He stated the pub was operating under Covid-19 restrictions such that only groups of 6 were allowed to sit together and that the booking diary was operational and correct, save for a mathematical error, in which the diary records there were 55 bookings for the day of which 35 were for the evening. In fact, the figures in the column for evening guests should total 46 which means that the total for the day ought to read 66. Of those 46 the diary records, according to Mr Carmpsie’s explanation, that 32 people attended for food and some of those only attended for takeaway. He maintained that not all 66 would have been present in the pub at the same time. Regardless, his evidence was that because of the Covid restrictions the pub was only taking bookings such that a maximum of 6 people could sit together at a table, that in fact only 66 guests attended throughout the entire day, of whom 46 had booked for the evening. In cross examination he accepted that one of the entries was confusing as it had been crossed out but it was possible there were possibly 50 people booked in for the evening, which would mean there had been possibly 70 guests throughout the entire day. In his statement he said there were likely to have been 29 guests in the pub at the material time.

In addition to the guests Mr Crampsie gave evidence that there were four members of staff on site. He said the claimant was serving front of house and Tina was said to be in the kitchen. In addition, he said Abbie Fuller was also working in front of house serving soft drinks, taking orders from the Barn, and waitressing. However, he accepted Abbie worked mainly in the kitchen. He stated in cross examination that on the evening in question he had been working predominantly in the bar. At the time of the accident Mr Crampsie says he was in the kitchen, having just returned from dealing with a customer in the barn, and as such he did not witness the accident first hand. Instead, he was told the claimant had fallen in the bar area and so he left the kitchen to attend to her.

He accepted that in a document he prepared on the 5th of December 2021 he recorded that the claimant had reported an earlier slip behind the bar some ten minutes before the material accident. This was omitted from his witness statement and there was no evidence from the claimant regarding such incident.

He says that at the time of the accident the claimant told him she blamed the accident on her new shoes. He said that after checking on the claimant at the time he immediately inspected the floor where the claimant said she had fallen. He stated it was not wet and that there was nothing on the floor which would have caused her to fall. He stated the floors were not slippery when dry and whilst the tiled floor can get wet in the vicinity of the entrance when it rains, which is why there is a large catch mat and the yellow warning sign is placed out, he was adamant the area where the claimant fell was a little way away from the entrance and was dry and free of debris at the material time.

Mr Crampsie said he completed the Accident Report Form based on what the claimant told him. He said that as he did not witness the accident he could only write what he was told had happened. He said he was told by the claimant that her shoes had only been purchased a week before the accident, and she told him they were not non-slip. He further explained that the claimant told him she had returned the trainers to the shop for refund for that reason.

He accepted he had a duty to keep visitors safe but stated that all staff were vigilant and trained to deal with spillages and the like. He described a typical “clean-as-you-go policy”. He said no additional inspections, additional monitoring, warning signs or other steps would have made any difference because there was no wet patch, debris, or spillage at the scene of the accident to see, avoid, or clear.

Mr Crampsie said he believed the wet floor sign was up. However, there is no meaningful evidence provided by Mr Crampsie or from the defendant as to when the wet floor warning sign was put up save to say that it is usual practice to put it up next to the entrance when it is raining. Mr Crampsie does not say he put the sign up himself and nor does he say who did put it up or when.

Mrs Lawn was very forthright in her evidence. As with the other witnesses I do not doubt that she gave what she considered to be her true account of matters and wanted to assist the court. She was not employed at the pub at the time of the accident and gave no evidence as to events on the evening of 3rd July 2021. Instead, she confirmed she had worked on and off at the pub and for the defendant over a period of 20 plus years. She stated that during that time she did not know of anyone other than the claimant who had reported slipping and falling on the tiled floor at the premises. She also said it was not usual for the particular area where the claimant fell to become wet. She said she had not found the tiles to be slippery herself and that she believed all staff were told about the need to be vigilant for spillages. She accepted she could not specifically say whether or not the claimant had been told.

I have had sight of photographs of the scene of the accident but no plan of the locus in quo was provided in the trial bundle. However, it is possible to determine the layout of the premises by piecing together information from the various witness statements and photographs.

There is an Accident Report Form but whilst it is initialled it is not clear who prepared it. The claimant denies being present when it was written. There is an entry from the Booking Diary, but the reliability of this document was called into question by the claimant. There is a Sampler Roster Sheet, but it does not cover the day in question and was of little assistance. There are no Risk Assessments, Training records, Inspection records, or Cleaning Records. There is a written account of events provided by Mr Crampsie dated 5th December 2021 and signed by him. I understand this was prepared by him for the benefit of his insurance investigator.

The claimant’s case is pleaded in negligence and breach of statutory duty. In particular it is alleged the defendant failed to take any or any reasonable care to see its lawful visitors including the claimant would be reasonably safe whilst visiting the premises, caused or permitted a liquid to remain in the hallway thereby creating a danger, failed to institute an adequate system of inspection, risk assessment, protective measures, or to meet the standards imposed by the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, or the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 (the “OLA”).

Mr Payne, for the defendant, submitted that “this is not an Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 claim” because the claimant is an employee not a visitor. I do not understand this submission. The claimant remains a visitor to the premises notwithstanding the fact that she is an employee. Her employment status simply makes her a lawful visitor as she has entered the premises within the scope of her employer’s authority.

The defendant owes the claimant a duty in common law negligence as well as under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957. The parties agree that in practical terms the test is the same and that the defendant’s duty is to take reasonable care for the safety of the claimant whilst she was on the premises and to ensure that a reasonably safe place of work is provided and maintained. Section 2(2) of the OLA provides:

The defendant’s position that the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 had the effect of removing civil liability for breaches of the workplace regulations is not disputed. The position taken by Ms Crorie, for the claimant, is that these Regulations are indicative of the standards the defendant is required to meet in order to satisfy the duty of care owed to the claimant as both an employee and a lawful visitor.

There is no strict liability imposed. As per Jackson LJ in Hufton v Somerset [2011] EWCA Civ 789:

If breach of duty is established the claimant must also satisfy the court that causation is made out. That is to say the claimant must prove on the balance of probabilities that there is a physical connection between the defendant’s wrong and the claimant’s damage. The claimant must adduce evidence that it is more likely than not that the wrongful conduct of the defendant in fact resulted in the damage of which the claimant complains of. Of course, the court is permitted to draw an inference that there must have been a causal link, taking a common-sense assessment of all the circumstances into account but it is for the claimant to satisfy the court that such inference is appropriate.

There are a number of factual issues in dispute between the parties. These include:

I am then also required to make findings as to whether the defendant breached their duty to the claimant and if so whether that breach or breaches were causative of the claimant’s fall.

It is not in dispute that the claimant fell at the time and place alleged nor that the fall caused her injury in the form of a fracture to her left arm. The dispute between the parties is a matter of liability for that injury.

In terms of factual findings whilst all witness have sought to give an honestly held account of events there are some discrepancies between the parties. I have sought to reconcile those discrepancies as best I can, but it remains the claimant’s case to prove.

In terms of staff numbers, I find that there were 4 members of staff of on duty. These included the claimant, Mr Crampsie, Mrs Crampsie, and Abbie Fuller. Mrs Crampsie was predominantly in the kitchen, and the claimant was covering most of the front of housework. It seems inherently unlikely Mr Crampsie as the publican would only operate within the kitchen when the pub had a designated chef. This is supported by the fact his evidence that he had been out to the barn area to deal with a customer who had complained about their bill. Abbie Fuller is likely to have spent most of her time washing dishes but may well have assisted with serving soft drinks. There is insufficient information or evidence to enable me to determine whether this is sufficient staff level for the number of guests present, but that has not been relevant to my final determination of liability in this matter.

In terms of guests, the claimant has given an estimate of a head count. There is no suggestion she specifically counted the guests at any point. Similarly, Mr Crampsie has not counted the guests. Despite the evidential arithmetic errors in the guest book, it remains the most useful and contemporaneous record of guest numbers. Covid restrictions were still in place and there were restrictions on social gatherings. The claimant described Mr Crampsie as diligent, and I have no reason to believe he would have allowed these restrictions to be flouted. Given this it is most likely that there were somewhere between 40 and 50 people in the premises at the material time. This strikes me as sufficient to make for the claimant feeling the pub was busy regardless of assistance from Mr Crampsie. Given an absence of a specific headcount this is as close an estimate as I am able to find.

The claimant has disposed of her footwear and neither party has any means of establishing the suitability of the trainers. The claimant has described them as “non-slip” but states she returned them to the vendor 7 days after the accident. Mr Crampsie says the claimant told him the trainers were not non-slip. The return of the shoes matches the information provided in the Accident report Book and the account given by Mr Crampsie: on balance of probabilities, he would only have this information if it was provided to him by the claimant. Whilst I am unable to determine whether or not the trainers had a non-slip sole, I am able to conclude and find that the claimant informed Mr Crampsie that she had returned the shoes and described them as unsuitable.

I am satisfied given the accounts given by all witnesses that the defendant communicated to the claimant that there was a “clean-as-you-go policy”. The claimant knew she was required to be vigilant for spillages and to clean them up if identified. The claimant says she was not given any specific training, but this is different from saying she was not told to operate a clean as you go policy. Given that this information was given to her verbally and was probably provided in 2015 it is hardly surprising the claimant is unable to recall a specific conversation. However, given she knew the whereabouts of mops, blue roll, and other cleaning items it seems more likely than not that she was familiar with the “clean-as-you-go policy”.

None of the witnesses admit to having set up the yellow wet floor warning sign. Neither do any of them specifically state they saw it in place prior to the claimant’s fall. The claimant only identifies seeing it in situ when she returned to the pub from the hospital. Mr Crampsie said “it had been put up when it started raining” but does not specify when it started raining, or who put it up. He did say in cross examination that “it had rained in the afternoon” and that “they put the sign out”. However, again he failed to say who did set it up, when they did it, whether it was then left out, or that he saw it prior to the claimant’s fall. It seems most likely it was put in place sometime after the claimant’s fall and before she returned from the hospital. In any event, given that the claimant accepted she did not know it had rained prior to her accident and that the warning sign was located near the entrance and not the bar where the claimant fell, this matter has not influenced the outcome of the case.

I turn now to the question of breach of duty. I am in little doubt the defendant has breached its duty of care to keep the claimant reasonably safe. Notwithstanding the absence of any recorded slipping accidents prior to the claimant’s fall the defendant has done very little by way of meaningful steps to ensure the safety of the claimant. This is demonstrated by the absence of any written records of risk assessments, cleaning regimes, or procedures to ensure the floor is kept clean, dry, or free from liquids or debris which may give rise to risks of people slipping.

The only evidence of any cleaning or inspection regime comes from Mr Crampsie who says at paragraph 17, referenced above. He provides minimal details regarding systems for inspecting the premises to ensure it is kept clean and clear of slip or trip hazards. He does not state what if any training was provided to the claimant or any staff regarding health and safety policies, how to deal with debris, spillages, rainwater, or anything that may constitute a hazard. There is no evidence that risk assessments have been conducted or even considered, or that any substantial preventative or protective measures have been taken to ensure safety of visitors. He is not even able to produce the Roster Sheet for the day of the accident, suggesting a general disregard for documentation.

A “clean-as-you-go policy” is not in my view sufficient to meet the duty to take reasonable care for the safety of the claimant. The Regulations referred to by the claimant may not impose a liability, but they are a fair indication of what may constitute a reasonable approach to safety at work. Having a documented cleaning and inspection policy is not onerous, need not be expensive, and is not time consuming for a small premises with limited walking areas, and which is open to the public to attend to drink alcohol. This is not an expectation to take every step to avoid any accident. It is a simple and reasonable approach to heath and safety. Neither is it adequate to simply inform the claimant verbally at the outset of her employment that she is responsible for being vigilant for spillages and liquids on the floor and that she must clean as and when she sees them. There ought at the very least to be a documented system to ensure the passing of this information to the claimant and record that she has been so informed. There ought then to be regular reminders to comply with the system so that the policy is seen as something more than just a nod to safety.

The claimant’s difficulty in this case arises not in establishing breach of duty, but in proving that the breach of duty was causative of the accident. The claimant had been working for some 1.5 to 2 hours prior to her fall. However, at no point does she describes the floor as hazardous, or describe seeing anything on the floor, liquid or otherwise, that might cause her to slip. There is no account of the frequency with which people, customers or staff, walked over the area where the claimant fell carrying drinks or food, or wearing potentially wet shoes. There is no account of anybody walking across the area having come from outside where it was raining or carrying umbrellas or coats which might have dropped rainwater onto the floor. There is no evidence at all that there has been any kind of recurring problem with liquids or spillages on this floor or indeed any floor in the premises. The claimant in her statement could only say that she slipped. She gave no account of any spillage on the floor before or after her fall. In cross examination she said, “I don’t know if there was anything on the floor”.

In her statement she was unable to describe the mechanism of her fall, and it was only under re-examination that she said she “was in a little bit of a rush…my foot went backwards” and “I fell forwards”. The claimant has made an assumption and stated, “there must have been something for me to slip on”. I am unable to make that same assumption or reach that same conclusion.

Mr Crampsie for his part states categorically that he inspected the scene of the fall immediately after the event and could identify no spillage or hazard. I accept this evidence and reject the claimant’s evidence Mr Crampsie did not carry out such inspection. The claimant was taken to the restaurant area after her fall and was out of view of the fall site. As such she can only account for Mr Crampsie’s whereabouts when he was stood with her and not before or after.

For the reasons explained above I find that the defendant breached their duty of care to the claimant. However, given the absence of anything on the floor which is likely to have caused the claimant to fall, those breaches were not causative of the claimant’s accident. Even if there had been a documented cleaning and inspection regime, a documented training programme, more staff on duty, less customers on site, documented risk assessments, or staff handbook, the accident would not have been prevented given the absence of a liquid or hazard on the floor. Accordingly, the claim is dismissed.