The major issue which arises is therefore, negligence on the part of Kowloon Bank and whether they had a duty of care towards Lester and their employees. The salient principles of tort law establishing injury and harm to plaintiffs have been derived on the basis of judgments which have been set out in various cases such as Donaghue v Stevenson1, Anns v Merton Borough London Council2, Murphy v Brentwood DC3 and Caparo v Dickman4, which form the basis for the duty of care that forms the foundation of tort law. All of the above cases have established the “good neighbour” principle, wherein a person owes another a duty of care and this would especially be the case with employees having a duty of care towards their employees.
The prevailing standard for medical negligence has been established in the case of Bolam5, i.e, the question of whether negligence has occurred must be assessed based upon whether a body of medical staff finds negligence to have occurred. McNorrie argues that the standards established in Bolam were bad in principle.6 He cites the case of Cavanagh v Ulster Weaving Co Ltd7 where employers were held to be liable for not taking good care of their employees. It must be noted at the outset that Lester had a disability and would have been responsible for equipping himself with necessary aids, such as a crutch in moving around the premises of the bank. Alternatively, he could have also requested such aids from the bank to enhance his mobility. The bank itself did all it could, i.e, providing him an ergonomic chair, etc.
On the issue of not putting up signs that the floor was wet, the person liable would be the individual employee/cleaner who failed to post signs to state that the floor was wet, rather than the bank itself. Secondly, the magnitude of Lester’s injuries might not wholly have been caused by the wet floor, because he was already disabled with a limp. Secondly, the delays which occurred were mainly because of the