Personal Injuries: what ‘usual dangers’ do not constitute negligence in trip and fall accidents?

A recent judgment examined the common law position on occupiers’ liability in relation to ordinary, everyday dangers — those considered “usual” and not giving rise to liability. The case came before the Court of Appeal on appeal from the High Court.

At common law, an occupier owes a duty to a visitor to take reasonable care for their safety.

Facts:

The defendant operated a network of fuel stations with attached convenience stores across Ireland. The plaintiff parked in a designated bay directly in front of the store. There were three parking spaces on either side of the store entrance; she parked in the middle space on the right-hand side. To her right was an empty space, and beyond that, a raised section of pavement described as a “nib pavement,” edged with standard concrete kerbstones.

After purchasing her coffee, the plaintiff walked to the back of her car intending to cross the road to the strand. As she stepped onto the nib pavement, she tripped on the kerb and fell forward. CCTV footage showed that the sun was low in the sky and shining directly toward her. She was wearing sunglasses and clearly did not see the raised kerb immediately before she fell.

The plaintiff accepted that, as a local resident, she was familiar with the station and must previously have been aware of the nib pavement. She explained that the usual pedestrian route along the footpath in front of the store was blocked, which is why she took the route she did.

Expert Evidence:

Both sides called forensic engineering experts.

• For the plaintiff, the expert described the layout as a “trap situation,” since the blocked footpath forced her onto the route where she tripped. He stated that such kerbs are typically painted yellow or dished, and that the defendant breached section 3 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1995.

• For the defendant, the expert testified that the pavement design was standard in car park layouts. The kerb was “common and ubiquitous,” and while some kerbs are painted, most are not. He described the layout as “a normal and familiar arrangement” for such premises.

The plaintiff argued that, had the footpath not been obstructed, she would have used the safer route and avoided the fall.

High Court Decision:

The High Court found in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the blocked footpath amounted to negligence and a breach of the occupier’s duty of care.

Appeal to the Court of Appeal:

The defendants appealed, arguing that there was no evidence that the nib pavement posed an unusual danger capable of attracting liability under the 1995 Act. They contended that the High Court had failed to recognise that such pavements are a common feature in car parks and public areas.

The Court of Appeal agreed. It held that there was no causal connection between the blocked footpath and the plaintiff’s fall. There was no duty on the defendant to provide a footpath at all, so whether it was obstructed was immaterial.

The Court criticised the High Court’s finding of negligence, noting that it had not considered whether the nib pavement itself constituted a danger requiring the defendant to take additional precautions.

Legal Analysis:

The Court referred to earlier case law on occupiers’ liability, including Lavin v Dublin Port Authority plc [2016] IECA 268 and Long v Saorstat Eireann (1959) 93 ILTR 137, where Murnaghan J stated:

“The plaintiff had to establish that the defendants had failed to take reasonable care to prevent damage from an unusual danger which they knew or ought to have known.”

Peart J in Lavin observed that section 3 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1995 effectively codified this common law principle.

Decision:

The Court of Appeal found no evidence that the nib pavement constituted an unusual danger. On the contrary, it was a normal and familiar feature of car park design. The defendant’s expert evidence was clear and largely unchallenged.

Taking into account the evidence, the law, and “common sense in everyday life,” the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that there was no breach of the 1995 Act and no negligence on the part of the defendants.

Kandaurova v Circle K. Energy Group Ltd [2025] IECA 13

About the Author: Sinéad Leahy is a Trainee Solicitor with Dermot G. O'Donovan Solicitors and is contactable on leahys@dgod.ie