Court rules on liability in construction site accident

Introduction

The High Court delivered a significant ruling on liability and contribution in a construction site accident involving R&B Plastering Limited and UK Insurance Limited. The case revolved around an accident where a subcontractor, Brian Eckford, fell through a hole on a building site, leading to a complex legal battle over liability and contribution under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978.

Background

The case stemmed from an accident on 27 July 2017, when Brian Eckford, engaged by R&B as a labour-only subcontractor, fell through a hole between the first and second floors of a construction site managed by Robert Norman Construction Ltd (RNC), which had since entered liquidation. RNC was the main contractor, and R&B was subcontracted for plastering work. The accident occurred when Eckford fell through a hole made for moving materials, which was covered temporarily but not secured.

The Appeal

The appeal was against the decision of HHJ Maloney KC, who found RNC liable for 50% of the damages after deducting 20% for Eckford's contributory negligence. The appeal focused on whether the judge gave sufficient weight to evidence suggesting Eckford's own conduct contributed more significantly to the accident.

Judgment

Mrs Justice Foster upheld the original decision, finding that RNC, as the main contractor, had a duty of care under both the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and in negligence. The court found that RNC failed to ensure the temporary covering was safe and robust and did not reinstate the floor promptly, which contributed to the accident. The judge also found that R&B and RNC jointly decided to cut the hole, and RNC's failure to address the hazard constituted a breach of duty.

Key Findings

The court found that the temporary cover was unsafe once the loading of materials was complete, creating a dangerous trap. The judge rejected the argument that Eckford's actions were the sole cause of the accident, noting the lack of evidence that he interfered with the covering. The court concluded that both R&B and RNC owed Eckford a duty of care and were equally responsible for the unsafe conditions.

Contributory Negligence

The court assessed Eckford's contributory negligence at 20%, considering his participation in the decision to use the hole and his awareness of its condition. The judge found that Eckford's decision to work alone without ensuring the floor was reinstated contributed to the accident, but did not absolve RNC of its responsibilities.

Rehabilitation Costs

The court also addressed the issue of rehabilitation costs, ruling that these were recoverable under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. The judge found that such costs, incurred to mitigate future damages, were part of the settlement and RNC was liable to contribute to these expenses.

Conclusion

This ruling underscores the responsibilities of main contractors in ensuring safe working conditions on construction sites and highlights the importance of proper risk assessments and method statements. The decision also clarifies the scope of recoverable costs under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978.

Learn More

For more information on construction disputes, see BeCivil's guide to Resolving Construction Disputes.