THE Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has delivered its reasons for rejecting the appeal of the Barbados-based Sandy Lane Hotel, in a case involving a former employee who was injured on the job.

Sonia Eversley (now Chase), a former housekeeper at the hotel, had gone to court to seek compensation following a December 2010 incident when a piece of marble above a doorway fell and struck her while she was cleaning a room.

She sued the hotel for negligence and breach of statutory duties under the Occupiers Liability Act.

The Barbados High Court found that the evidence presented by lawyers representing Eversley established negligence on the part of the hotel.

The High Court, as an alternative, applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur — meaning the thing speaks for itself — in ruling in her favour as it found that the hotel had failed to provide a safe place and system of work. This decision was upheld by the Barbados Court of Appeal and Sandy Lane then appealed to the CCJ.

In a ruling handed down on Tuesday, the CCJ upheld the rulings of the courts below that the hotel had breached its duty to provide a safe workplace.

The CCJ examined key issues, including whether the hotel had breached its duty to provide a safe workplace, whether the legal principle of res ipsa loquitur was properly applied despite not being explicitly pleaded, and whether the Court of Appeal erred in affirming the lower court’s findings.

In handed down the majority verdict, Justice Andrew Burgess said the CCJ reaffirmed that res ipsa loquitur is 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 Eversley’s claim adequately set out the facts necessary to support such an inference.

In addition the CCJ 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 — 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.

Justice Adrian Saunders, president of the CCJ, in a concurring opinion, noted that Sandy Lane failed to provide any evidence supporting its initial claim that Eversley contributed to the accident. He also dismissed the hotel’s assertion that it was denied a fair trial.

But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Denys Barrow found that the evidence did not support a conclusion of negligence. He opined that the cause of the marble falling was known — failure of the adhesive agent — and that the principle of res ipsa loquitur was misapplied.

Justice Barrow said he would have allowed the appeal.

Following the hearing, the CCJ had ordered an interim payment of BDS$100,000 to Eversley.