Personal Injury Responsibility

[debz1203]

Hi,

I wonder if anyone can advise...a gentleman had delivered a letter to my property and left it half out of the letter box and on realising he had delivered it to the wrong address he later returned to remove the letter and on leaving my front porch the slab on the step (which was cracked) wobbled or fell off its plinth and he slipped he hurt is ankle.

To set the scene, my house has a small porch which has two steps up to the door, the first of which is a concrete plinth with 2 slabs and this is on the public footpath. One of these slabs was cracked and has been for as long as I have lived here but unknown to me it was also loose...I never use the front door and nobody (postman, etc) has ever mentioned it or fallen to my knowledge.

How would liability be determined in this circumstance?

Thanks in advance for any help.

[EDDIE51]

Has the man made a complaint or told you he is seeking damages ?
I am afraid it looks like you are liable as your step was unsafe. The fact that you did not know about it does not effect liability. Do you have household insurance ? that normally covers this sort of thing.

[debz1203]

Nothing so far, but it only happened today...just looking into it in case he does...yes we do have buildings and contents insurance...would that normally cover it?

[HowardKennitby]

Witnesses?

[Canary42]

Get in first - sue him for damaging your steps :)

[debz1203]

There were people there but no idea if anyone saw what happened? I had no idea it was loose as I never use it.

[debz1203]

Love your answer Canary! lol

[Zacs-Master]

Did you talk to him and more importantly, did you say 'sorry' in any way?

[factor-fiction]

I'm nott sure the 'sorry' carries much weight in law- it doesn't seem to me to imply acceptance of guilt or negligence

[joko]

i would very much doubt this story to be honest - who leaves mail poking out a letterbox? why was he hand delivering it? how did he suddenly realise it was the wrong place? what address did he mistake yours for?
is your house clearly numbered etc? is he a postman?

sounds like a blag to try to claim compo to me - perhaps he was hoping you'd offer him a few quid...

[factor-fiction]

^ sorry (and yes I am accepting it was my fault!) for the typo- I shouldn't try typing without the light on

[debz1203]

I asked if there was anything he needed (blanket, etc.) and was very careful not to say sorry and didn't apologise in any way...he did say "it's ok duck, it's not your fault, I shouldn't even of been here" and told me where he was looking for ( which was not my house)

[debz1203]

I thought the whole story was a bit odd to be honest...he was hand delivering (not postman) and no idea why or how he realised it was wrong address...house is clearly numbered but our street has lots of bits off it and people regularly get it wrong! I thought it was weird to leave it sticking out...happens with papers but who hand delivers a letter and leaves it sticking out?

[debz1203]

Does anyone know if I need to pre-empt (no idea how to spell that) this and contact insurance in advance?

[FredPuli43]

You are liable as an occupier of premises by virtue of the Occupiers Liabilty Act 1957 as amended by the like-named Act of 1984. I do not think it's arguable that the relevant step is wholly or partly on the public footpath and so not part of the 'premises' ! You have a common duty of care to visitors (which word is now widely defined and includes this man) to maintain your premises so that no danger is presented by reason of their condition.Your only defence (in practice) is to show that you had entrusted the maintenance of that part to a contractor and you had no reason to believe that he had not carried out the work necessary or that he was not competent. The common duty of care is somewhat higher than the duty of care in negligence. That you did not know that the slab was loose is unlikely to avail you.

[debz1203]

How can I fix something that I was not aware was faulty though?

[debz1203]

Doesn't that define it as an accident?

[FredPuli43]

If you didn't actually know that the steps presented a danger you still have a duty under the 1957 Act to ensure that the steps are reasonably safe. Support for this interpretation is found in the 1984 Act. That act extends 'visitors' to include trespassers, but your liability to them, inter alia, is only for dangers which you know or ought to be aware of. The inference is that your duty towards true visitors exists though you do not actually know of the danger and extends to making sure that the premises are reasonably safe for visitors. It may be argued that, in any event, the existence of a crack in the step suggests some defect which should be investigated and is a potential cause of danger.