What was the case about?
The case centred around the condition of a vinyl floor covering in a corridor at a care home which frequently became slippery with urine. As well as regulation 12 on floors, the case specifically referred to para. 93 of the Approved Code of Practice which says that:
‘surfaces of floors and traffic routes which are likely to get wet or to be subject to spillages should be of a type which does not become unduly slippery’.
The judges took the view that the floor:
‘was not suitable for the purpose for which it was used. The floor was dangerous when wet. Wetness occurred frequently and regularly and could not be avoided. Accidents had already occurred and were likely to recur; they might well be quite serious. Staff could not be expected at all times to concentrate on the possible presence of urine. Therefore the floor was unsuitable (from a health and safety viewpoint) for the purposes for which the staff used it.’
What are the implications for employers?
Before this case employers could argue that they took all reasonably practicable steps to avoid a slipping hazard by keeping the floor free from any substances likely to cause a person to fall, by showing that they had a robust systems to ensure effective inspection and cleaning, with warning notices where applicable (under r12(3)).
However, this judgement now means that employers run the risk of facing a strict liability duty (under r12(1&2)) if spillages are ‘frequent and regular.’ This contrasts with the rather more ‘flexible’ duty under r12(3) which applies so far as is reasonably practicable (SFARP) to keeping the floor: ‘free from obstructions and from any article or substance which may cause a person to slip, trip or fall’.
What should you do?
Risk assessments should be reviewed to consider whether a slippery substance lies upon the floor’s surface on a ‘frequent and regular basis.’ If this is the case you would be advised to consider introducing a non-slip surface.
However, in the case of claims, employers would be advised to argue that the duty falls within regulation 12(3) which provides a less onerous requirement to keep surfaces free from hazards SFARP.
Provided employers operate a robust system of inspection / cleaning and do not have accidents associated with the condition of the floor, they may still be able to persuade a court that the occurrence of spillages is rare and that their duty falls under r12(3) rather than r12(1).
Does this only apply to slippery floors?
This particular case concerned a slippery floor. However, the strict liability in r12(1) also applies to other factors: The traffic route shall be of a construction such that the floor or surface…is suitable for the purpose for which it is used.’ This could equally apply to loose carpet, or tiles.