An occupier of commercial premises does not breach its duty of care merely by having an isolated step that is differentiated by colour, tread and pattern and visible on approach, even without additional warning measures. Differences in level in public places are an everyday risk which members of the public avoid by taking care for their own safety. Where the operative cause of a fall is the plaintiff's distraction by an extraneous factor (such as glare), the failure to further mark the step is not causative of the harm.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.