Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

Sayers v Harlow Urban DC

388 words (2 pages) Case Summary

4th Oct 2021 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Legal Case Summary

Sayers v Harlow Urban DC [1958] 1 WLR 623; [1958] 2 All ER 342; (1958) 122 JP 351; (1958) 102 SJ 419



The plaintiff visited a public lavatory, owned by the defendant – a local authority. She locked the door, but when she tried to get out, she could not as the lock was stuck. The plaintiff unsuccessfully tried to attract attention for 15 minutes. Then she decided that she could get out of the lavatory by climbing over the door. To do this, she stood with one foot on the toilet seat and the other on the toilet roll holder, whilst holding onto the door and a pipe with her hands. The plaintiff realised that this method of escape was not possible. On climbing down, the plaintiff again placed some weight on the toilet roll holder, which rotated and she fell to the ground, sustaining injury. The plaintiff sued the local authority for negligence. The county court held that the defendants were negligent, but dismissed the plaintiff’s claim on grounds that the damage to the plaintiff was too remote. She appealed to the Court of Appeal.


Were the attempts of the plaintiff to climb over the door of the toilet cubicle natural and probable consequences of the negligent act of the defendant?


The appeal was allowed.

(1) In determining the remoteness of the damage, the court needs to balance the risks taken by the plaintiff against the consequences of the defendants’ breach of duty.

(2) The plaintiff did not take a risk that was disproportionate to the necessities of her situation. Therefore, the injury that the plaintiff sustained was not too remote from the negligent act of the local authority.

(3) However, on the facts, the plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence, as having realised that she could not climb over the door, she should have appreciated that she could not rely entirely on the toilet roll holder to support her weight. Hence, she was 25 per cent to blame for the accident.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles