Nurse who slipped and fell on wet hospital floor awarded £50,000 damages

Kathleen Ann McLeish, 60, was working in the A&E department at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary when she fell on a slippery surface in one of the resuscitation rooms on June 10, 2011.

A judge in the Court of Session ruled that her employers Lothian Health Board were liable after cleaners failed to put down signs warning of the wet floor.

Lord Mulholland heard that the pursuer was showing two visiting consultants from Birmingham Children’s Hospital one of the resuscitation rooms when the accident occurred.

As she entered the room she saw Marion Reid, a domestic cleaner, and asked whether she would mind if they came in.

The cleaner said she would not mind and the pursuer took three or four steps into the room, but as she turned to speak to the visitors she slipped on the wet floor and fell heavily.

She was unaware that the floor was wet and there were no warning signs, nor did Ms Reid verbally warn her, although she was holding a mop at the time.

The pursuer sought damages from the defender in respect of a statutory breach of Regulation 12(3) of the Workplace (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1992.

It was argued by the defender not that the deployment of a wet floor sign was not reasonably practicable, but that it was “pointless”.

However, the judge did not accept that submission.

Lord Mulholland said: “The fact is that the deployment of a wet floor sign is part of the system of work which was to be used when the floor was wet and wasn’t in this case. If the floor was wet then staff would expect to see a wet floor sign. The fact it was not there would and did give the pursuer the false impression that the floor was not wet.”

As a result of the accident the pursuer broke her left wrist, which caused her to momentarily faint in the resuscitation room.

She subsequently developed a condition called complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), a condition which causes her “constant pain and disability”.

Now unable do her job properly, she was prescribed medication for depression and had to be signed off work in a bid to recover.

The judge accepted that the cause of the disorder was the accident.

“It is no surprise that having regard to the injuries suffered, the onset of CRPS, the restriction in movement, the constant pain suffered and the effect on her job, she developed a depressive disorder,” he said.

The court also heard that the pursuer struggled with many day-to-day tasks and was unable to do many hobbies like swimming and playing the piano.

The judge held that the defenders were liable to make reparation to the pursuer.

In a written opinion, Lord Mulholland said: “The pursuer as a result of her injury and the long-term effect thereof has had to adjust the clothes she wears. She will often wear clothes with zips rather than buttons as she finds it difficult to use her left hand for activities requiring fine motor skills… She can dress independently but takes longer to do so.

“With regard to household chores, she has had to adapt her methodology or wait for her family to come and help with the heavier chores…Driving causes her pain in her left wrist and arm (used for changing gears in her manual car) which manifests itself after only 5 minutes of driving.

“With regard to her employment she cannot do fine motor tasks such as suturing of any length and does not have the strength to manipulate broken bones back into place or conduct a physical examination which requires her to lift or move limbs.

“The injury has affected her confidence at work and her energy levels are devoted to getting through the working day…She does not see friends and family as much as before and is therefore more socially isolated.”

He concluded: “For the reasons I have set out, I have found the defender liable to make reparation to the pursuer in the total amount of £48,206.”

In addition to liability another point of dispute between the parties related to retirement, with the pursuer arguing that she would require to retire early as a result of being unable to do her job due to her injuries and the long-term effects thereof.

However, the judge noted that “suitable arrangements and adaptations” had been made to her work pattern to allow her to continue working.

He said: “The pursuer wants to continue working as a nurse practitioner which was admirable and consistent with her obvious dedication to her vocation as a nurse. Should her condition change and worsen as a result of her injuries, then NHS Lothian, with the assistance and advice of occupational health, can look again at this issue. However, on the evidence presented to me, bearing in mind that the onus of proof rests on the pursuer, for the foregoing reasons I was not satisfied that this aspect of the pursuer’s case had been proved.”