Image from Google Jackets

When standards fall, the courts may find labourers responsible

By: Language: English Series: Construction News ; (6938) 13 October 2005, 25(1)Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Summary: Considers the implications of the recent CA decision in "James v Butler" ([2005] EWCA Civ 1014, unreported). J sued the B for negligence. The two men had been erecting a conservatory in J's home when J was seriously injured by a falling rafter, which J alleged B had not adequately secured. The claim was dismissed, on the basis that B was only a general labourer, not a professional contractor, and thus owed a lower standard of care. Furthermore, the judge added J had been contributorily negligent, in that he should have asked B's permission to enter the conservatory after leaving it briefly. On appeal, it was held that B's status was irrelevant. The rafter had been inadequately secured, and B was liable unless he could prove he had not been negligent, and in this case the facts spoke for themselves. They also rejected the finding of contributory negligence. It is clear from the decision both that a labourer must display a reasonable level of competence, and that whilst legally it is not necessary to ask permission from colleagues if it is safe to enter a work area, it is prudent to do so.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Journal article London Journal article L131333 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 131333-1001

Considers the implications of the recent CA decision in "James v Butler" ([2005] EWCA Civ 1014, unreported). J sued the B for negligence. The two men had been erecting a conservatory in J's home when J was seriously injured by a falling rafter, which J alleged B had not adequately secured. The claim was dismissed, on the basis that B was only a general labourer, not a professional contractor, and thus owed a lower standard of care. Furthermore, the judge added J had been contributorily negligent, in that he should have asked B's permission to enter the conservatory after leaving it briefly. On appeal, it was held that B's status was irrelevant. The rafter had been inadequately secured, and B was liable unless he could prove he had not been negligent, and in this case the facts spoke for themselves. They also rejected the finding of contributory negligence. It is clear from the decision both that a labourer must display a reasonable level of competence, and that whilst legally it is not necessary to ask permission from colleagues if it is safe to enter a work area, it is prudent to do so.