Liability under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 requires a causal link between a breach of duty and the injuries sustained.
A claim for damages for personal injury against the operator of the Docklands Light Railway has been withdrawn by the claimant following determination of a preliminary issue against him in Drummond v Keolis Amey Docklands Ltd [2023] EWHC 853 (KB).
The claimant sustained catastrophic, life changing injuries on 23 March 2019 following celebrations over the end of exams when he got onto the track at Canary Wharf DLR station and was hit by a DLR train travelling through the Westferry Underpass.
He brought proceedings against the defendant for damages for breach of duty under the 1984 Act and/or in negligence for failures to take any or adequate steps to prevent him from accessing the track and failing to provide an adequate barrier between the platform and the tracks.
The particulars of claim were non-committal as to the means by which the claimant had accessed the track whether by opening a gate at the end of the platform and passing through it or sidling around it at the point of the platform edge.
CCTV footage on the gate was insufficient to resolve the issue. Proposed amendments pleaded that the claimant had opened the gate unhindered by any locking mechanism or alarm.
The amendments were only causally relevant if the claimant was able to establish that he had opened the gate and passed through it. Determining the point as a preliminary issue the judge was not satisfied that the claimant had gone through the gate.
The exit gate had graphic warnings displayed upon it referring to danger of death, the gate being alarmed and CCTV cameras being in operation.
The CCTV footage showed the claimant walking normally along the platform, looking up at the camera on the gate on more than one occasion and behind him along the platform inferring that he was checking that he was not being observed by staff.
The judge found that the claimant knew that his movements were being filmed and that he knew or had read the warning that the gate was alarmed.
Consequently, it would be odd if, not wanting to be detected leaving the platform and venturing onto the track, he then opened what he believed to be an alarmed gate.
It was far more likely that he would have sidestepped the gate at the edge of the platform and avoided triggering the alarm. As a fit and athletic sportsman, he was well able to do so.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
