Public Liability Solicitors — Slip, Trip and Fall Claims in Public Places

Yes. The subsequent repair is evidence that the defect existed and was dangerous — a responsible authority repaired it after your accident. However, the local authority will likely invoke the s.58 Highways Act 1980 statutory defence — arguing it had a system of reasonable inspection and repair and that the defect could not have been found earlier. A solicitor obtains the council's inspection records under a Freedom of Information request and challenges whether inspections were carried out at appropriate frequencies and whether the defect should have been identified before your accident.

The shop's cleaning inspection log (sweep sheet) is the key document — it records when the floor was last inspected and cleaned. A solicitor requests this under the pre-action protocol. If the floor was last inspected 2 hours before your accident on a busy Friday afternoon, the court may find the interval was inadequate. CCTV footage showing how long the spillage had been present before the accident is particularly powerful evidence — a solicitor urgently requests CCTV preservation immediately after the accident, before footage is overwritten (typically within 30 days).

There is no fixed minimum size — liability depends on all the circumstances. Local authorities often apply a 25mm (1 inch) threshold as a guideline below which they argue a defect is not actionable. However, this is not a statutory defence — it is merely an internal policy. The court considers the location of the defect (busy pedestrian route vs quiet path), its visibility (camouflaged by leaves or debris), and the claimant's specific circumstances (age, footwear, activity). Defects below 25mm have been held actionable. A solicitor measures the defect precisely and obtains an expert engineer's report.

Yes — but contributory negligence may reduce your damages. The fact that a pedestrian is looking ahead rather than at the ground does not automatically make them contributorily negligent — courts do not expect pedestrians to look at their feet at all times on a pavement they are entitled to expect is maintained safely. However, if you were distracted by a phone, running inappropriately, or wearing obviously unsuitable footwear in the circumstances, a contributory negligence reduction may apply. This is a question of fact in each case — a solicitor advises on the likely finding.

A warning sign does not automatically discharge the occupier's duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. Section 2(4) provides that a warning must be sufficient to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe — a generic "wet floor" sign in the middle of a large supermarket spill area may not be sufficient if it does not adequately identify the hazard or route the visitor safely around it. The adequacy of the warning is a factual question — a solicitor assesses whether it was displayed before or after the accident, whether it was visible from your direction, and whether it adequately identified the hazard.