Diner's £100k claim over ‘runaway truffle' after fall at Michelin-listed restaurant

Independent

2 days ago

A diner who blamed a "runaway truffle" after slipping in high heels while exiting a Michelin Guide -listed restaurant has lost her fight for £100,000 compensation.
Rosina Malik, 62, twisted her ankle and broke her right wrist when she fell at fine dining restaurant Chapter One, in Farnborough Common, Kent, after she stood to adjust her dress at the end of a three-course dinner with two pals.
She blamed her accident on having stepped on a "runaway" caramel-filled chocolate truffle, which had been 'dropped but not retrieved' by a waiter during dessert, as she got up from her chair.
Mrs Malik, of Castlemaine Road, South Croydon, sued the restaurant's owners, Simply Chapters Ltd, for up to £100,000 in damages over the impact of the October 2020 accident.
But the restaurant denied liability and while not disputing that a truffle was dropped onto the floor, the restaurant's managers insisted Mrs Malik did not step on it before the accident.
In a judgment at Central London County Court this week, Judge Nigel Gerald ruled against Mrs Malik, crucially finding that her right shoe had 'no contact' with the truffle - and so dashing her hopes of securing compensation for her injuries.
The 62-year-old told the court she was left 'in shock' after her fall, which left her with painful injuries to her ankle and wrist.
The offending truffle was among a selection offered up by her table's waiter which she and her companions decided to have boxed up as they were already full from their dinner.
But the wandering truffle fell from its dish while being transferred to the box, explained Mrs Malik, rolling off the edge of the table, where - she claimed - she subsequently trod on it, or its residue.
Mrs Malik told the court in the witness box: 'I stood up and, as I stood up straight and tried to fix my dress, my feet started to slip and just gave way under me."
She explained that when she got up from the table she assumed their waiter had already picked the truffle up from the floor and that it was no longer a 'risk'.
'If the waiter knew it was there, he should have brought it to my attention,' she told the judge.
'When I stood up, I assumed that whatever had been dropped had been picked up. I had no knowledge that something which had fallen was still on the floor when I stood up."
The judge said that immediately after the accident all assumed that the truffle was the culprit as it was found on the floor, while some of the chocolate remains were also on the sole of Mrs Malik's shoe.
But an exhaustive trawl through the restaurant's CCTV showed a more complex picture, with the restaurant maintaining there was no point where Mrs Malik was in fact seen to stand on the caramel choc.
Her barrister, Simon Plaut, put her case on grounds that she either stepped on the truffle's 'viscous residue' after standing up from the table - or that she herself squashed the chocolate by standing on it while standing up.
But defence lawyers claimed Mrs Malik ended up on the floor after her right ankle 'inverted' and she tripped over, insisting that what the restaurant's barrister, Juliet Stevenson, labelled the 'runaway truffle' was nothing to do with the accident.
She sketched out multiple alternative possible reasons for Mrs Malik's loss of balance, including she having knocked back up to three glasses of wine, a 'somewhat slippery floor,' fatigue at the end of the day, and wearing high heels 'no matter how experienced the wearer'.
But she also noted: 'The fact is that people do on occasion lose their balance without clear cause.'
Judge Gerald in his ruling said the video footage did not show any contact between Mrs Malik's foot and the truffle, adding: 'Her toe appears to come close to the truffle, but it's quite clear that it doesn't in fact come so close or within contact, because not only does the truffle not move but it's shape does not change.'
As for the traces of sticky caramel on her shoe, this probably ended up on the sole 'after the accident and before her shoes were removed,' the judge added.
'I find that the claimant didn't tread on the truffle before she fell and therefore she has been unable to establish the essential facts which she relied on and I dismiss her claim,' he concluded.