Court rules on contributory negligence case

On 1 April 2025, the High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, addressed a significant case involving contributory negligence in the context of a construction site accident. In Charles Jack Lee v Parminder Singh Khraud & Ors, the court examined the circumstances surrounding Mr Lee's serious injuries following a fall from an unfenced mezzanine floor while assisting with work at a property owned by the first defendant.

Mr Lee, a self-employed plasterer, suffered severe injuries including fractures and a brain injury when he fell on 9 July 2018. Despite the defendants admitting primary liability for the inadequately secured site, they contended that Mr Lee's damages should be reduced due to contributory negligence. The judge recognised that Mr Lee had retrograde amnesia, hampering his ability to recall the events leading to the accident, and noted a lack of direct evidence concerning the circumstances of the fall. However, it was clear that Mr Lee had not received any safety training for the unfamiliar site and the absence of guard rails was both obvious and foreseeable.

In reviewing the case, the judge determined that Mr Lee had breached his duty of care by failing to take reasonable precautions near the open edge of the mezzanine. Even though the defendants were liable for not providing adequate safety measures, Mr Lee's actions, including approaching the edge without sufficient caution, justified a one-third reduction in damages awarded to him.

Following this ruling, Mr Lee appealed, arguing that the judge had misapplied the burden of proof and that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of contributory negligence. He asserted that the judge's conclusions were largely based on speculation rather than substantiated facts.

The appeal court thoroughly assessed these claims, reaffirming the necessity for courts to maintain an equitable balance between establishing fault and recognising the responsibilities of all parties involved in accidents. The judge indicated that contributory negligence could surface if a party's injury was foreseeable, noting that this principle was evident in Mr Lee's situation.

Ultimately, the appellate court upheld the lower court's decision. It confirmed that, despite the lack of precise evidence about the mechanism of the fall, the original judge had rightfully inferred Mr Lee's failure to exercise due care. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision regarding contributory negligence, along with the adjustments to damages, was sustained.

This case underscores critical aspects of negligence law, particularly in relation to workplace safety and individual accountability. The ruling serves as a vital reminder for contractors and tradesmen to prioritise safety measures, particularly in potentially hazardous or unfamiliar work environments