## Facts

- Mrs. Sayers became trapped inside a public lavatory cubicle owned and operated by Harlow Urban District Council due to a malfunctioning door lock.
- After unsuccessfully seeking help for fifteen minutes, she attempted to climb over the door to escape.
- She placed one foot on the toilet seat, the other on the toilet roll holder, and held onto the door and a pipe.
- The toilet roll holder rotated when she placed her weight on it, causing her to fall and injure herself.
- Mrs. Sayers sued the local authority, alleging that their failure to maintain the lock constituted negligence resulting in her harm.

## Issues

1. Whether Harlow Urban District Council was negligent in failing to maintain the lavatory door lock.
2. Whether the injury sustained by Mrs. Sayers was a foreseeable and not too remote consequence of the council’s negligence.
3. Whether Mrs. Sayers’ actions amounted to contributory negligence, justifying a reduction in damages.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal found the council negligent for failing to maintain the lavatory lock.
- The injury suffered by Mrs. Sayers was determined to be a foreseeable result of the council's negligence and not too remote.
- The court held that Mrs. Sayers bore partial responsibility, as she should have realized the toilet roll holder was not suitable to bear her weight.
- Damages awarded to Mrs. Sayers were reduced by 25 percent to reflect her contributory negligence.

## Legal Principles

- Liability for negligence requires a breach of duty of care resulting in foreseeable harm.
- The doctrine of remoteness limits liability to damage that is a natural and probable consequence of the negligent act.
- Claimant responses to negligent acts are not too remote if they are reasonable and foreseeable under the circumstances.
- Contributory negligence applies where the claimant’s actions contribute in part to the harm, reducing the recoverable damages proportionally.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal allowed Mrs. Sayers' appeal, finding the local authority liable for negligence but reducing her damages by 25% due to contributory negligence, and clarified the application of remoteness and claimant response in negligence cases.

Sayers v Harlow UDC [1958] 1 WLR 623