Description
The Defendant appealed against a finding that it had been responsible for a slipping accident caused to the Claimant. It was argued on behalf of the Defendant that the substance which had allegedly caused the Claimant to slip could only have accumulated over a period of time and would have therefore been present during a site inspection. W argued that the site inspection had concluded that the manhole cover did not constitute a hazard and therefore could not have been the reason for the Claimant's slipping accident. It was held that the substance in question was present on the manhole cover at a time when it could and should have come to the Defendant's attention. The conclusion reached was one which was open to the judge on the evidence before him and the decision was upheld.
