Christmas elf….and safety!

18 December 2011 by

Dufosse v Melbury Events Ltd  CA (Civ Div) (Rix LJ, McFarlane LJ, Sir Mark Potter) December 14, 2011 (extemporare judgment)

Christmas is full of hazards for the unwary and nowhere is more dangerous it seems than Santa’s grotto, even where there is no sign of a freeze and the only icicles are plastic ones…

Poor Santa. Heavily chaperoned in his gift-dispensing activities lest there be any whiff of inappropriate behaviour near children, now it seems his benevolent insistence on a wintry wonderland is under threat.  An elderly woman visited his grotto with five members of her family  at a well-known department store in London. She tripped over a plastic icicle and injured her leg, and took proceedings against the event management group responsible for running the grotto.

The two employees who ran the grotto played the role of Santa and the elf respectively. The elf’s job was to escort visitors in and out of the grotto and to ensure that everything ran smoothly and that there was nothing loose on the floor.  Santa was also responsible for ensuring that there was no danger, although this was a difficult requirement to fulfil as he was essentially immobile on his “throne” and had only a minute and a half between the entry of each group of visitors to look around and check for hazards. The question before the judge at first instance was whether the icicle, a Christmas bauble that had fallen from the tree, should have been seen by Santa and the elf, and removed in the performance of their duties.  The district judge’s view was that, since the icicle had not been seen by them and there was a good safety system in place, there had been no breach of duty; the icicle was not in plain view as it was partly hidden by a toy train which was on the floor alongside the wall.

Too many elf-and-safety duties

On appeal the question before the court was: if the icicle was there to be fallen over, was it there to be seen? Even though the system used by Santa and the elf might have been excellent, the elf was concerned with many other duties and it was possible that on that occasion Santa and the elf were not as careful in the taking of precautions as they should have been. The only proper inference on the balance of probabilities was that the icicle was there to be seen. If it was there to be stepped on, it was there to be seen. The judge below had taken “an overly benevolent” view of the performance by Santa and the elf of their duties in the appellant’s case.

This was not the end of the matter, however. At the conclusion of the case, the court was asked to rule on contributory negligence, that is, whether the appellant had contributed to her own injury by stepping sideways and backwards in a small overcrowded room so that she could be “out of range of the camera” (presumably recording Santa communing with the two small boys in the party). The court ruled this out.  Including Santa, there were 8 people in a small space made even smaller by toys and two Christmas trees and the lighting was dim. The accident had happened when the appellant had moved, at the request of the elf.  She could not have seen anything at that time as her attention was drawn on entry to the other side of the grotto where the toys were. In the circumstances, it was not the appellant’s duty to ensure that there were no tripping hazards in the grotto; it was the duty of Santa and the elf. Therefore, there was no contributory negligence to take into account and the appeal was allowed.

Santa and his minions presumably long for the days when their duties involved mere skyborne journeys pulled by celestial reindeer and trips down chimneys that defied even the laws of quantum mechanics…

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

3 comments


  1. Jim says:

    Somebody is having a giraffe! ( cockney rhyming slang for laugh! ) that is ridiculous!!
    Santas grotto should have a sign at the entrance that says…. ” bad tempered reindeer…… Enter at your own risk!…..”!

  2. FatherDougal says:

    ‘off’

  3. FatherDougal says:

    I think she ought to be crossed off Santa’s list this year.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: