Slip Claim Claimant Pendulum Testing

The claimant's evidential task

The claimant must usually establish (in summary): that the floor was below an acceptable slip-resistance standard at the time of the accident; that this caused or materially contributed to the slip; and that the duty-holder failed to take reasonably practicable steps to manage the risk. Pendulum data addresses the first element directly.

Timing and access

Pendulum testing for a claimant is more constrained than for a defendant because access to the property is rarely automatic. Common scenarios:

• Public-realm slip (highway, public footpath, public building) — access is straightforward; testing can be arranged directly
• Retail or hospitality slip — access may require the defendant's cooperation or, in some cases, a court order for inspection
• Workplace slip — access typically through the employer or, if relations have broken down, via formal disclosure

Evidential strength of claimant pendulum data

Properly conducted pendulum testing on the actual surface where the accident occurred is among the strongest forms of slip-claim evidence. The defendant's expert will scrutinise:

• Whether the test location precisely matches the claimed accident location
• Whether the surface has been altered since the accident
• Whether the contamination conditions were comparable
• Whether the slider type and methodology were appropriate to the surface and use

Pre-empting these challenges in the methodology and the report is the difference between robust evidence and evidence that folds under cross-examination.

Highways Act claims — a different test

Slip claims against highway authorities under Section 41 Highways Act 1980 face a more nuanced test than premises-liability claims. The authority has the Section 58 statutory defence if it can show reasonable maintenance. Pendulum data is helpful but not determinative — the case turns on the maintenance regime as much as the surface condition.

Joint expert and single-expert work

For lower-value claims under CPR 35.7, a single joint expert may be appointed by both parties. Where we accept joint instructions, we deliver to the same UKAS-accredited methodology regardless of which side initiated the instruction. The report is for the court.