Vakansieganger, 64, who sued TUI for £112,000 after claiming she broke her ankle by slipping over in puddle at Tenerife hotel loses claim for compensation after judge ruled that a ‘wet bum’ was not enough evidence
A judge said a ‘wet bum’ was not sufficient evidence to sue TUI for £112,000 after a holidaymaker slipped onto her rear at a luxury Tenerife juice bar, shattering her ankle.
Karen Carey, 64, did not convince Judge Heather Baucher she slipped in a puddle of juice or water just because she claimed she had a wet bum after her fall.
Mrs Carey was injured while she and her husband, Peter, were breakfasting at the luxury H10 Taburiente Playa Hotel in Tenerife six years ago.
She went down on her backside after her feet went from under her as she walked towards the fruit juice bar.
The fracture had a catastrophic effect on her life and career, Central London County Court heard, plaguing her with chronic pain and drastically limiting her mobility.
Karen Carey, 64, shattered her ankle at the four-star hotel in Tenerife six years ago as she was going down to have her breakfast. Mrs Carey is pictured outside Central London County Court
The British woman was holidaying at the luxury H10 Taburiente Playa Hotel in Tenerife (op die foto) when the incident happened in January 2016
Mrs Carey sued holiday giants TUI Ltd for £112,620 over the January 2016 ongeluk, which her lawyers blamed on a juice or water puddle which cleaners did not mop up.
But Judge Baucher has now thrown out her claim, saying she had not given enough detail about how she slipped to found a ruling of negligence on the part of TUI.
In getuienis, Mrs Carey told the judge that she didn’t know exactly how she slipped, but said there must have been a puddle of juice or water on the floor because ‘my bum was wet’ after the fall.
But dismissing her case, het die regter gesê: ‘She simply has no idea on what, indien enigiets, she slipped. Mrs Carey’s shorts could have been wet for any number of reasons (after her fall) and that is not enough on which to found liability.’
Mrs Carey and her husband had booked a seven-day package at the four-star beachside hotel, which boasts spectacular views, four swimming pools and several restaurants.
The fall came on the fifth morning of the couple’s week-long winter dream holiday – and led to an ambulance rushing her off to hospital in La Palma, as well as repeated bouts of surgery once she was back in the UK.
Tydens die saak, TUI’s legal team denied all liability.
They disputed that any liquid had been spilled on the floor, which they say was regularly cleaned up by hotel staff.
They also claimed that she was at fault for going to breakfast barefoot and not keeping a proper lookout.
To this day she still suffers from a ‘significant disability’ due to her injuries, het die hof gehoor.
She said she her mobility has been affected and she had to quit a job she loved as a hotel credit controller.
TUI disputed that any liquid had been spilled on the floor, which they say was regularly cleaned up by staff at the hotel (op die foto)
Sketching out the circumstances of the accident her barrister, Andrew Young, het die hof gesê: ‘Mrs Carey and her husband sat down at a table and the claimant then stood up and started walking towards the area where fruit juice was available in order to obtain a drink.
‘As she came near to the area, her feet slipped from underneath her and she fell to the floor twisting her right ankle as she did so.
‘She saw nothing on the floor before she fell, but she noticed that her bottom was wet after she had fallen.
‘Her husband was summoned by a waiter immediately after the accident and he also noticed that the floor around the claimant was wet.’
The judge concluded: ‘The burden is on the claimant to prove there was something on the floor which caused her to slip and that burden has not been met.
‘It is sad that the claimant fell over with such devastating impact during this accident, but that is just what is was, an accident. I hope that Mrs Carey can now find some way to move forward.’
The judge awarded costs in the case to TUI, but Mrs Carey will not have to pay the bill unless the court makes a further order at a future date.