A chef has been awarded more than $50,000 in damages after slipping on a ramp that breached building regulations.

Beverley Allen was awarded just over $55,000 as a result of the fall in November 2012 after taking her employer, Gold Coast Company Ltd, to court.

Ms Allen, who worked as a chef at Q’s Bar and Grill in Warwick, suffered a broken arm when she slipped on the rubber mat on the ramp.

The Supreme Court heard that the ramp was in breach of the Bermuda Building Code 1996 because it was too steep, and furthermore it breached the code because there were no handrails.

Gordon Ness, the building control officer for the Department of Planning, gave evidence that the department had given formal approval for construction work to be carried out at the premises including specific approval for the ramp.

However, the approval was based on the architect’s plan, which showed a ramp that complied with the code. Mr Ness said that he had visited the site and that the ramp that had been built departed substantially from the ramp in the plan and was not in compliance with the code.

He stated that there was no mention of the ramp in the inspection history for the premises, which he said signified that it had not been inspected.

Nonetheless, upon completion of the building works the Department of Planning had issued a certificate permitting the use of the premises as a restaurant. Mr Ness said that he would have to carry out an investigation as to how and why that had happened.

Gold Coast Company Ltd denied that it acted negligently or in breach of its statutory duty. It claimed that Ms Allen’s injuries were caused or contributed to by her own negligence.

However Justice Stephen Hellman ruled in favour of Ms Allen awarding her $18,270 for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, $19,676 for medical expense and $17,590 for the cost of her care in the aftermath of the accident.

He said: “I find that the plaintiff’s injury was caused — and not merely contributed to — by the defendant’s negligence and breach of statutory duty. The defendant is therefore liable to pay the plaintiff damages.

“Had I not found that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff in tort, I should have found that, as a result of the plaintiff’s injury, the defendant was liable to pay workers’ compensation.”

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any slanderous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers.