000			01611cab a2200193 4500
001			##L131333
008			051020n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u131333
041	0		_aeng
100	1		_aBell, James
245	0	0	_aWhen standards fall, the courts may find labourers responsible
260			_c2005
490		0	_aConstruction News _v(6938) 13 October 2005, 25(1)
520			_aConsiders 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.
590			_aIKA251005
650	2	4	_aJAMES V BUTLER
690			_aHealth and safety _96244
942			_n0
999			_c76044 _d76044