Gibbons Company was in such agony she could not sleep in her husband's bed.

Mrs. Merlin Burt found it more comfortable to bed down on the floor for 22 months -- affecting her marriage.

The horrific fall left her with a fractured shoulder and bruising of her left thigh.

Doctors claim she will now have ongoing shoulder problems, and may even need surgery.

Details of the accident were read out in the Supreme Court on Friday by Puisne Judge the Hon. Mr. Justice Ward.

The incident occurred at the company's premises in Reid Street, Hamilton, on May 16, 1989.

Mrs. Burt, 43, of Euclid Avenue, Pembroke, whose work has been seriously affected, was visiting to pay a bill.

As she was descending the stairs her shoe heel got caught in a loose aluminium strip at the edge of a step.

The bracelet she was wearing was smashed into three pieces.

As she lay at the bottom a store supervisor tended to her, and she was taken to King Edward VII Memorial Hospital by a security officer.

Mrs. Burt later filed a lawsuit -- but the company denied negligence, or that it was in breach of its statutory duty.

It maintained the aluminium strip affixed to each of the steps was manufactured and fitted to provide added grip for people descending.

The firm's lawyer Mr. Nicholas Voaden argued the accident was so improbable it was not necessary to guard against it. He also observed accidents happen for reasons other than unsafe steps.

But in his written judgment on Friday Mr. Justice Ward rejected the company's stance.

He said: "It was suggested to the plaintiff that her shoes because of their design caused her to fall, and that she was not walking properly nor keeping a proper lookout where she was walking.

"I find that there was no evidence to support those suggestions.

"The plaintiff did not fall down as people sometime do by walking and stumbling without any apparent cause.

"Here in the path that she was using, there was a hidden danger in the form of a loose aluminium toe nosing at the edge of the stairs, a danger of which she could not be expected to be aware.

"The occupier was under a duty to keep a reasonable lookout for this type of danger.

"The duty would include carrying out regular inspections to insure that the nosings which could move as the screws worked themselves loose, were firmly secured by retightening the screws as often as required.

"The policy of the management was to fix whatever was shown to be in need of fixing. It was reactive rather than proactive.'' Mr. Justice Ward noted the company had changed the metal nosings to rubber ones since the accident -- although not because of it.

"The present staircase is therefore safer than the former one.'' His ruling added: "By virtue of her shoulder injury the plaintiff has been unable to pursue her vocation as a hairdresser to the same extent as she did before the accident.

"Whereas before, according to her evidence, she could handle ten customers per day, now she is reduced to dealing with two or three. Her earnings have now been reduced.

"Nor has she been able to participate in recreational activities such as swimming, tennis and cycling, as she did before the accident.

"At present her only form of exercise is walking. She can no longer perform all her duties in the home, such as cleaning, mopping and hanging items of clothing on the line.

"Her marital relationship with her husband has also been affected for she found it necessary to sleep on the floor for 22 months rather than in the matrimonial bed as a means of alleviating the pain in her left shoulder.'' In compensation, Mr. Justice Ward awarded Mrs. Burt $23,400 for loss of earnings to date of trial; $11,250 for loss of future earnings; $16,000 for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities; and $6,212.58 special damages.

The final total is $59,998.60, which includes $3,136.02 interest.