The Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has outlined the reasons for its decision in a case in which a former housekeeper had been awarded BDS$100,000 (One Barbados dollar=US$0.50 cents) after being injured while working at a hotel in Barbados.
According to the CCJ, the appeal was against the finding of the High Court and Court of Appeal of negligence by Sandy lane Hotel Co Limited for failure to provide a safe place and system of work. The CCJ upheld the rulings of the courts below that the hotel had breached its duty to provide a safe workplace in the matter involving Mrs Sonia Chase née Eversley.
The CC, Barbados highest and final court, upheld the rulings of the courts below that the hotel had breached its duty to provide a safe workplace.
It said that the matter arose from an incident on 4 December 2010, at the Sandy Lane Hotel, when a piece of marble above the doorway of a room fell and struck Mrs Chase while she was cleaning.
She sued the hotel for negligence and breach of statutory duties under the Occupiers Liability Act. The High Court held that the evidence adduced by Mrs Chase established negligence on the part of Sandy Lane.
The High Court, as an alternative, applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur, meaning the thing speaks for itself, in ruling in her favour, finding that Sandy Lane Hotel had failed to provide a safe place and system of work. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal. Sandy Lane then appealed to the CCJ.
During the hearing, the CCJ examined key issues, including whether the hotel had breached its duty to provide a safe workplace, whether the legal principle of res ipsa loquitur was properly applied despite not being explicitly pleaded, and whether the Court of Appeal erred in affirming the lower court’s findings.
Justice Andrew Burgess, delivering the ruling noted that the CCJ reaffirmed that res ipsa loquitur is not an independent rule of law but rather a statement that expresses a reasoning process that allows courts to infer negligence from the circumstances of an accident.
The Court found that Mrs Chase’s claim adequately set out the facts necessary to support such an inference. It also reiterated its principle that an apex court should only disturb concurrent factual findings, that is, instances where both the trial and appellate court agree on factual determinations, in exceptional cases, and in this case, there were none that applied. The CCJ typically refrains from interfering with concurrent findings unless there is a clear legal or procedural error.
CCJ President, Justice Adrian Saunders, in a concurring opinion, noted that Sandy Lane failed to provide any evidence supporting its initial claim that Mrs Chase contributed to the accident. He also dismissed the hotel’s assertion that it was denied a fair trial.
But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Denys Barrow found that the evidence did not support a conclusion of negligence. He opined that the cause of the marble falling was known—failure of the adhesive agent—and that the principle of res ipsa loquitur was misapplied. He would have allowed the appeal.
Following the hearing, the CCJ had ordered an interim payment of BDS $100,000 to Mrs Chase.
