Muppet sues after falling through garage skylight

OK, you couldn’t make it up.  A London woman is trying to sue her landlord after falling through a garage skylight.

From the article:

Mrs Mayers, now 29, used a window to get on to the roof of a garage attached to her flat in Islington in February 2002, the High Court in London heard.

She and friends had gone out to dance but she stepped backwards on to the glass skylight, falling through it.

The garage was not part of the property she was renting. The outcome of the hearing could affect the warnings landlords have to give their tenants about dangers in and around their properties.

OK, so let’s get this straight:

  • She climbed out of a window, onto a garage roof
  • The garage wasn’t even part of the property she was renting, and she had no rights of access to it – so she was trespassing
  • She stepped on a glass skylight, and fell through it
  • Pure speculation, but if she was celebrating her 24th birthday by dancing on the roof of a garage, there’s a fair chance she was drunk

What the hell does she think she can sue her landlord for?

The court should immediately throw this one out without even getting as far as a hearing, and then use her statement as evidence to prosecute her for trespass and criminal damage.

The solicitor who took up her case should also hang his/her head in shame for being willing to waste courts time with something like this.

The article says:

Although she has recovered from severe head injuries, she is seeking damages from Piyush and Naginbhai Patel, of Hendon, North-West London.

Er, perhaps bringing this ridiculous case is a sign that she hasn’t yet fully recovered from these “severe head injuries”?

One thought on “Muppet sues after falling through garage skylight”

  1. For once, common sense triumphed.


    Anna Mayers, who was celebrating her 24th birthday when the accident happened in February 2002, had her case dismissed by a judge at the High Court in London.

    Sir John Blofeld ruled that Mrs Mayers, now 29, had been a “trespasser” on the roof of the garage, which was attached to a flat she was renting at the time with university friends in Islington, north London.
    Rejecting her damages claim against Piyush and Naginbhai Patel, of Hendon, north west London, who had denied liability, Sir John said she had sustained “thoroughly unpleasant” injuries.
    The judge said the evidence was that she had drunk about four or five glasses of wine and a home-made vodka jelly and was “merry” but not drunk.

    There was no suggestion, he said, that anyone at the party was drunk.

    Sir John announced that he had “unhesitatingly” come to the conclusion that she and her co-tenants on the roof that night were trespassers.

    They had no authority to go on to the roof of the garage, which was not part of the property included in the tenancy agreement.

    He ruled that it had not been proved that the state of the premises – the roof and the skylights – were “dangerous” within the meaning of the Occupiers Liability Act.

Comments are closed.