E H Humphries (Norton) Ltd and Thistle Hotels plc v Fire Alarm Fabrication Services Ltd [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2006] EWCA Civ 1496, 10 November 2006. Considered the liability of an occupier and contractor for the safety of the sub-contractor's employee. Appellants (H and T) appealed against the decision that they were liable to contribute to damages which an employer (F) had paid with regards to the fatal accident of an employee (G). F was appointed as a subcontractor by contractor H to install a new firm alarm system in T's hotel. G was a fire alarm installation engineer who fell to his death after after F decided to route electrical cables externally (the route had not been pre-planned). F settled a claim by G's widow and sought contribution from H and T. H and T were ordered to contribute on the basis that their negligence was causative. H and T appealed, claiming that F had been instructed not to route the cables externally and therefore they were not in breach of any duty of care owed to G. "Held": appeal allowed. F should have investigated the best route for the cabling and reported back for an agreed decision, but instead unilaterally decided to use the external route without instructions from H or T.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 136189-2001 |
[2006] EWCA Civ 1496, 10 November 2006. Considered the liability of an occupier and contractor for the safety of the sub-contractor's employee. Appellants (H and T) appealed against the decision that they were liable to contribute to damages which an employer (F) had paid with regards to the fatal accident of an employee (G). F was appointed as a subcontractor by contractor H to install a new firm alarm system in T's hotel. G was a fire alarm installation engineer who fell to his death after after F decided to route electrical cables externally (the route had not been pre-planned). F settled a claim by G's widow and sought contribution from H and T. H and T were ordered to contribute on the basis that their negligence was causative. H and T appealed, claiming that F had been instructed not to route the cables externally and therefore they were not in breach of any duty of care owed to G. "Held": appeal allowed. F should have investigated the best route for the cabling and reported back for an agreed decision, but instead unilaterally decided to use the external route without instructions from H or T.