Analyzing Ward v. Tesco Stores Ltd

Introduction

Known as the ‘trip and slip’ case, Ward V. Tesco Stores Ltd. constitutes an early precedent in the sphere of negligence under the English Tort Law. While addressing the issue of this case, it might seem a simple case of negligence; this case sets out a famous doctrine of res ipsa loquitor and sheds light on the topic of occupier’s liability as well. Herein, we shall discuss the brief factual summary of the case followed by the possible legal issues, ratio decided, obiter dicta and the famous judgment held by Lawton LJ and Megan LJ. If you require detailed analysis or assistance with your studies, consider seeking UK dissertation help to ensure deep understanding and effective research.

SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

Ms. Ward, the claimant, being a customer of the supermarket chain namely Tesco Stores Ltd., entered into the premises of one of their stores, located in Smithdown Road, Liverpool for purposes known to the him herein. During the course of her business inside the store as mentioned herein, the claimant slipped on some pink yogurt that was spilled on the floor of the supermarket store and suffered minor injuries pertaining to the accident of slipping. During this event, the manager was called and Ms. Ward was considerate away.

Three weeks later, the claimant went into the same store and again noticed a spillage of orange squash on the floor which was unattained for an hour. Therefore the claimant, Ward, held the Tesco Stores Ltd., the defendant, liable for the act of negligence under the English Tort Law.

However, the defendant denied the liability claimed by the claimant and submitted before the court that the defendant had strict policies regarding the events of spillage and the stuffs are instructed to deal with spillage as soon as they are detected. They also submitted that the particular event of spillage may have occurred by another customer or by any other force of nature, in which case it would be impossible for the defendant to know the events of spillage. The defendant also provided the court with evidences of frequent cleaning of the stores but they failed to adduce any evidence regarding the particular floor being cleaned before the happening of the claimant’s accident. Thus, the claimant successfully sued the defendant in the tort of negligence.

EXPLANATION OF THE LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED

The legal issues involved in this case are of two folds:

1. The act of negligence under the English Tort Law

As per the English Tort law, an act of negligence can be defined as the failure to exercise a particular standard of reasonable care which a reasonable man should exercise under a particular circumstance. The main elements of the act of negligence under the Tort law are as follows:

An implied duty of care.

An express breach of such duty.

Damages caused due to such breach of duty.

Reasonable causation between the damage and the breach of duty.

2. The Occupier’s Liability Act, 1957

Based on the doctrine of Occupier’s Liability under the law of Tort, the Act of Occupier’s Liability came in force in the year of 1957. Section 1(1) of this Act, strictly states that the owner of a land or premises owes a certain amount of duty of care towards the lawful visitor of that land or owned premises herein.

3. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur

The legal principle of Res ipsa loquitur means ‘the things that speaks for itself’. Thus, according to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, if there is an existence of a duty of care, a breach of such duty and reasonable causation between the damage cause and breach of such duty, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor shall apply where the one in charge of such duty of care shall be held liable.

1. Donoghue v Stevenson(1932), UKHL 100
2. Nettleship v Weston, (1971) 2 QB 691
3. Smith v Leech Brain & Co [1962] 2 QB 405
4. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co, [1966] UKPC 10
5. The Occupier’s Liability Act, 1957 (1957), chapter I, section 1(1)
6. Harris v Birkenhead Corporation, [1976] 1 WLR 279

THE JUDGMENT

The trial judge held in favour of Ms. Ward and she was awarded with compensation to the tune of £137.50. Tesco appealed before the Court of appeal where it was held by a majority that even if it could not be deducted what exactly happened with the spillage, it was the defendant’s onus to prove that there was not any breach to the duty of care towards its customers and this burden of proof is of evidential nature and not probative. The defendant was held liable under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor and Occupier’s Liability. The judgment of Lawton LJ referred to the case of Richards v. WF White & Co. and it was further held that as the supermarket store was under the management of the defendant, ipso facto the defendant shall have liability under the Occupier’s Liability Act, 1957 and as the accident happened due to the defendant’s failure to uphold to his ordinary course of duty of care, the Tesco Supermarket shall be held liable.

THE RATIO DECIDENDI OF THE CASE

The ratio decidendi of the abovementioned case that there was a breach of duty of care on the part of the defendant and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor shall be exercised where the spillage of the pink yogurt spoke for itself that there had the presence of negligence on the part of the defendant, Tesco. Another ratio decidendi of this case is ‘onus of proof of defendant is of evidential nature and not probative’, stated by Megan LJ.

THE OBITER DICTA OF THE CASE

The defendant was held liable of under the tort law of negligence with a result of majority 2:1 decision in favour of Ms. Ward, the claimant. While Lawton LJ and Megan LJ found the defendant liable under the principle of res ipso loquitor, Omrod LJ held a dissenting view in favour of the defendant. The obiter dicta of this case the comments of the dissented view of Omrod LJ where he stated that the defendant could not have taken any prior care to prevent the accident; thus the defendant did not fail to take reasonable care and the spillage could have happened under any other circumstance, irrespective of any reasonable care taken by the defendant.

1. Negligence claims and res ipsa loquitur (2011), Croner –I, available at https://app.croneri.co.uk/feature-articles/negligence-claims-and-res-ipsa-loquitur, accessed on 20th May, 2021
2. The Occupier’s Liability Act, 1957 (1957), chapter I, section 1(1)
3. Richards v. WF White & Co. [1957] 1
4. cott v. London and St Katharine Docks Co. (1865) 3 H&C 596, 601
5. Negligence claims and res ipsa loquitur (2011), Croner –I, available at https://app.croneri.co.uk/feature-articles/negligence-claims-and-res-ipsa-loquitur, accessed on 20th May, 2021

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE

The case of Ward v. Tesco Stores Ltd. set the precedent of doctrine of res ipsa loquitor and the evidential onus of proof on part of the defendant. This case has been a milestone in the history of English Tort Law and set a strong precedent with the principle of ‘evidential burden of proof on the part of the defendant’. The judgment of the ‘Ward’ case has altered the position of the claimant where they are not needed to carry the burden to prove that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care.

Conclusion

After discussing abovementioned the case thoroughly, it can be concluded that Ward V. Tesco Stores Ltd. did not only provided a great example on the topic of negligence under the English Tort Law but also sets a precedent which was followed by several ‘ward-type’ case in the history of English Tort Law. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor had well discussed in this case along with the liability on behalf of the occupier’s as well. Therefore, this case started imposing a stricter compliance on the part of the occupiers and tightened the loose ends of the remedies under the tort law of negligence.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to Analyzing Professional Conduct Issues in Legal Practice.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Article

Negligence claims and res ipsa loquitur (2011), Croner –I, available at https://app.croneri.co.uk/feature-articles/negligence-claims-and-res-ipsa-loquitur, accessed on 20th May, 2021

Legislation

The Occupier’s Liability Act, 1957 (1957), chapter I, section 1(1)

Case lists

Cott v. London and St Katharine Docks Co. (1865) 3 H&C 596, 601

Donoghue v Stevenson(1932), UKHL 100

Harris v Birkenhead Corporation, [1976] 1 WLR 279

Nettleship v Weston, (1971) 2 QB 691

Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co, [1966] UKPC 10

Richards v. WF White & Co. [1957] 1

Smith v Leech Brain & Co [1962] 2 QB 405