## Facts

- On 15 November 2008, Ms. Geary sustained serious injuries at The Coronet, a London pub operated by JD Wetherspoon plc, after falling while retrieving her handbag from a ledge approximately 1.5 meters above ground.
- She had placed her handbag on the ledge, then climbed onto a bench and onto a railing to retrieve it, losing her balance and falling.
- Ms. Geary suffered a fractured pelvis as a result of her fall.
- She brought claims of negligence and breach of statutory duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 against the defendant, contending that the design of the premises created an unreasonable risk and that warnings should have been provided.
- The defendant argued the risk was obvious and that Ms. Geary voluntarily assumed it by choosing to climb onto the railing.

## Issues

1. Whether JD Wetherspoon plc owed a duty of care to protect Ms. Geary from the risk she encountered under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957.
2. Whether the risk of falling from the ledge was so obvious that the doctrine of voluntary assumption of risk (_volenti non fit injuria_) applied, thereby absolving the occupier of liability.
3. Whether the defendant breached its statutory duty by failing to eliminate the ledge or to warn about potential dangers.
4. Whether contributory negligence should reduce or bar Ms. Geary's claim if her own actions contributed to her injury.

## Decision

- The High Court found in favour of the defendant.
- The risk of falling from the ledge was considered obvious, and Ms. Geary had voluntarily assumed that risk by climbing onto the railing.
- The court held that the defendant did not breach its duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, as occupiers are not required to protect visitors from fundamental or self-evident risks.
- The court regarded the claimant's action as the proximate cause of her injuries and found it impractical to require occupiers to warn against all obvious hazards.

## Legal Principles

- The duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 requires occupiers to take reasonable care to ensure visitors are reasonably safe, but does not extend to fundamental or obvious risks.
- The doctrine of _volenti non fit injuria_ (voluntary assumption of risk) applies when a claimant knowingly accepted an obvious risk.
- The concept of contributory negligence may reduce damages if the claimant's actions contribute to their injury, though the focus here was on total assumption of risk absolving liability.
- Imposing an obligation to warn against every obvious risk would be an unreasonable burden on occupiers.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that JD Wetherspoon plc was not liable for Ms. Geary's injuries, as she had voluntarily assumed an obvious risk by her actions. The decision clarifies the limits of occupiers' duty of care and reinforces personal responsibility when engaging in activities with evident dangers.


Geary v JD Wetherspoon plc [2011] EWHC 1506 (QB)