![\"\"](\"https:\/\/dominicanewsonline.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/caribbeancourtofjustice_1f9b8837f37014926ad299ed218c000a-e1730389484588.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
On Tuesday, 18 March 2025, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) delivered reasons for dismissing the appeal of\u00a0BBCV2024-001\u00a0Sandy Lane Hotel Co Ltd v Sonia Eversley\u00a0in a case involving an injury sustained by former housekeeper, Mrs Sonia Chase n\u00e9e Eversley. The appeal was against the finding of the High Court and Court of Appeal of negligence for failure to provide a safe place and system of work. The CCJ upheld the rulings of the courts below that the hotel had breached its duty to provide a safe workplace.<\/p>\n
The matter arose from an incident on 4 December 2010, at the Sandy Lane Hotel in Barbados, when a piece of marble above the doorway of Room 417 fell and struck Mrs Chase while she was cleaning. She sued the hotel for negligence and breach of statutory duties under the Occupiers Liability Act. The High Court held that the evidence adduced by Mrs Chase established negligence on the part of Sandy Lane. The High Court, as an alternative, applied the principle of\u00a0res ipsa loquitur,\u00a0meaning the thing speaks for itself, in ruling in her favour, finding that Sandy Lane Hotel had failed to provide a safe place and system of work. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal. Sandy\u00a0Lane then appealed to the CCJ.<\/p>\n
The CCJ examined key issues, including whether the hotel had breached its duty to provide a safe workplace, whether the legal principle of\u00a0res ipsa loquitur\u00a0was properly applied despite not being explicitly pleaded, and whether the Court of Appeal erred in affirming the lower court\u2019s findings.<\/p>\n
The Honourable Mr Justice Burgess delivered the lead judgment, with President Saunders and Justices Anderson and Ononaiwu concurring. In its judgment, the CCJ reaffirmed that\u00a0res ipsa loquitur\u00a0is not an independent rule of law but rather a statement that expresses a reasoning process that allows courts to infer negligence from the circumstances of an accident. The Court found that Mrs Chase\u2019s claim adequately set out the facts necessary to support such an inference. The Court also reiterated its principle that an apex court should only disturb concurrent factual findings, that is, instances where both the trial and appellate court agree on factual determinations,\u00a0 in exceptional cases, and in this case, there were none that applied. The CCJ typically refrains from interfering with concurrent findings unless there is a clear legal or procedural error.<\/p>\n
The Honourable Mr Justice Saunders, President of the CCJ, in a concurring opinion, noted that Sandy Lane failed to provide any evidence supporting its initial claim that Mrs Chase contributed to the accident. He also dismissed the hotel\u2019s assertion that it was denied a fair trial.<\/p>\n
In a dissenting opinion, the Honourable Mr Justice Barrow found that the evidence did not support a conclusion of negligence. He opined that the cause of the marble falling was known\u2014failure of the adhesive agent\u2014and that the principle of\u00a0res ipsa loquitur\u00a0was misapplied. He would have allowed the appeal.<\/p>\n
Following the hearing, the CCJ had ordered an interim payment of BDS $100,000 to Mrs Chase.<\/p>\n
The members of the CCJ panel were CCJ President, the Honourable Mr Justice Adrian Saunders, and Honourable Justices Anderson, Barrow, Burgess, and Ononaiwu. Mrs Marguerite Woodstock-Riley KC and Mrs Amanda R. Riley-Jordan appeared for the Appellant and Ms Yasmin S. Brewster and Ms Rhea A. Cheltenham appeared for the Respondent.<\/p>\n