Sandra Theresa McCrindle v Gala Casinos Ltd - Court of
Session, 16 February 2007
Mrs McCrindle and her husband had enjoyed an evening at the Gala
Casino in Edinburgh. She alleged that she fell on the steps outside
the casino as she left to get into a taxi. Mrs McCrindle claimed
damages in terms of the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 on
the basis that the stairs in their entirety were a hazard and that
the steps were uneven. She cited in her support the fact that the
Casino had erected a handrail after the accident. The Casino argued
that Mrs McCrindle was not a reliable witness, having given three
different version of events since the accident. Furthermore she was
familiar with the steps, had consumed four gin and tonics during
the evening and was wearing shoes with no back strap. Mrs McCrindle
led expert evidence from an architect who made a number of
assumptions in his report regarding when the steps had previously
been altered and what he referred to as difficult lighting
conditions. He took the dimensions of the steps using a clipboard,
which he propped up vertically, and a tape measure. He did not
visit the site in the hours of darkness. He attributed the fall to
Mrs McCrindle's lead foot. This sat uneasily with her own
evidence.
The Casino's expert architect used a spirit level and calibrated
calliper to take the dimensions of the steps. He took proper
lighting measurements. He gave evidence of having visited the
Casino at night and having watched people leave without difficulty.
He considered that the stairs were well lit and easily seen at
night. His evidence was preferred. The judge considered that in all
probability the heel of one of Mrs McCrindle's shoes had caught on
the edge of a step and that she had failed to prove any breach of
the 1960 Act. He found that at least in the centre line the steps
were well constructed in acceptable symmetry and alignment both
vertically and horizontally and within acceptable tolerances and
that the lighting was adequate. There was no history of any
accident on the stairs in spite of regular use over time. He
rejected the argument that a railing would be required if the steps
were built now and should have been there by the date of the
accident. If he had had to consider contributory negligence, given
Mrs McCrindle had said she was looking straight ahead, was not
looking where she was placing her feet and had taken some alcohol
he would have found her 50% to blame.
A useful reminder of how important it is to choose your expert
with care and to provide him with all the necessary information to
provide his report, as well as being a cautionary reminder to
proceed with care when wearing backless shoes whilst under the
influence of alcohol.