Key Facts
- •Claimant, a self-employed builder, fell through a fragile barn roof while installing guttering, sustaining catastrophic injuries.
- •Defendant, a self-employed farmer, engaged the Claimant.
- •Both parties were aware of the roof's fragility.
- •The claim alleges negligence and breaches of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015).
- •Neither party was aware of the CDM 2015 Regulations before the accident.
- •The Claimant's method involved passing guttering through a narrow gap between the barn roof and the adjacent farmhouse roof.
- •The Claimant used crawling boards but stood while pulling the guttering, leading to his fall.
- •A makeshift crash deck had been used in previous work on the barn, but not by the Defendant.
- •No Construction Phase Plan was prepared.
Legal Principles
Occupiers' Liability Act 1957: An occupier owes a common duty of care to take reasonable care to ensure visitors are reasonably safe.
Occupiers' Liability Act 1957
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015: Clients have duties regarding project management, including ensuring a Construction Phase Plan is drawn up.
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974: Breach of a duty imposed by a statutory instrument is not actionable unless regulations provide otherwise.
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (as amended by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013)
Caparo Industries Ltd v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605: Three-stage test for establishing a duty of care (foreseeability, proximity, fairness, justice, and reasonableness).
Caparo Industries Ltd v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The court found no civil liability arising from the breach of CDM 2015 regulations due to Section 47(2) of the 1974 Act. The court did not find it fair, just, and reasonable to impose a common law duty mirroring the statutory duty in this specific case. Further, the Claimant's fall was not directly caused by the Defendant's failure to request a Construction Phase Plan.
Contributory negligence apportioned 75% to the Claimant.
Even if liability existed, the Claimant's actions (standing on a fragile roof while pulling the guttering) were a significant contributing factor.