Tenant who fractured arm after tripping at back door loses personal injury case based on defective design

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] SC EDIN 69
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff K J Campbell

Janet McTaggart raised a claim against Wheatley Homes South Ltd, with whom she entered into a Scottish Secure Tenancy in November 2019, after sustaining a fracture to her right arm requiring surgical re-union. Damages were agreed at £25,000 in the event that the defender’s liability was established.

The case was heard by Sheriff Kenneth Campbell in the All-Scotland Sheriff Personal Injury Court, with Deans, advocate, appearing for the pursuer and Hennessey, solicitor, for the defender.

Potential for injury

The subjects of let comprised a three-bedroom maisonette with garden ground at the rear. Access to the back garden was taken through a uPVC unit at the rear of the property, installed prior to the pursuer’s tenancy as part of upgrading works in the street. There was a raised threshold to the door within the property extending approximately 50-60mm from ground level, with two steps down to the garden ground made of a uPVC-metal mixture and concrete respectively.

On the evening of 20 July 2021, during daylight hours, the pursuer was going into her back garden through the door when she tripped and fell forwards, landing on the concrete slabs at the base of the steps. Her evidence was that she believed she had tripped on the lip at the back door, not in the area with the concrete slabs. In cross-examination, she accepted that there were tables and chairs in the living room near the door to the garden, however these did not prevent the door from opening fully.

The pursuer also led expert evidence from a chartered surveyor, Mr Aitken, who took the view that the layout of the pursuer’s back door would not be allowed in a new building due to the number of different levels in a short space of time plus the upright of the door sill. He accepted that he did not have information about the precise mechanism of the accident and could not say that a slightly lowered threshold would have avoided the accident.

Counsel for the pursuer submitted that the evidence of Mr Aitken showed that the design of the door threshold had the potential to cause injury and the landlord was under a duty to inspect per schedule 4 of the 2001 act. The defender challenged the admissibility of Mr Aitken’s evidence, did not accept that the door threshold was defective, and submitted that the only relevant statutory duty here was the duty to maintain, which was not in breach.

Not inconsistent with standards

In his decision, Sheriff Campbell said of the available evidence: “I consider that the pursuer was doing her best to assist the court. Her account was credible, however the reliability of some aspects of her evidence was less strong than others no doubt due to the passage of time. I consider that Mr Aitken was appropriately qualified to give evidence as a skilled witness, and I therefore repel the challenge to the admissibility of his evidence. Nonetheless, for reasons to which I will come, I do not accept every element of Mr Aitken’s evidence.”

He added: “The pursuer’s recollection of events was incomplete, which is not wholly surprising given the time which has passed since the accident. Beyond the fact that the pursuer tripped at some point while going through the door into the garden, I do not have a clear description of how the accident occurred. The pursuer thought she tripped on the upper part of the door threshold or sill, though precisely how was unclear. I accept that was the area where she tripped, rather than on the slabbed area, as the defender suggested based on a description in some of the medical records. It is likely that is recorded because the slabbed area is where the pursuer ended up.”

Considering whether the design of the back door resulted in a breach of duty, the sheriff said: “Mr Aitken accepted that the actual design of the back door was not inconsistent with building standards at the time of construction. He also accepted that there was no obligation on a landlord constantly to update and modify the design and construction of property as building standards evolved. That is consistent with those provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 the court was referred to.”

He concluded: “It is, I think, also consistent with a duty of reasonable care, because nothing the defender did in relation to the door replacement was inconsistent with statutory building standards at the time they did those things. Accordingly, the pursuer has failed to establish the accident was caused by an act or omission by the defender, which would amount to a breach of a duty of reasonable care.”

Decree of absolvitor was therefore granted in favour of the defender.