McMath v Rimmer Brothers (Liverpool) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE PEARSON |
| Judgment Date | 17 November 1961 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1961] EWCA Civ J1117-2 |
| Date | 17 November 1961 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
[1961] EWCA Civ J1117-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Lord Justice Ormerod
Lord Justice Harman and
Lord Justice Pearson
MR. MARVEN EVERETT, Q.C. and MR. ANDREW RASKIN (instructed by Messrs A. Taylor & Co., agents for Messrs Mace & Jones, Liverpool) appeared as Counsel on behalf of the Appellants (Defendants).
MR. EDWARD WOOLL, Q.C. and MR. A.D. PAPPWORTK (instructed by Messrs Silverman & Livermore, Liverpool) appeared as Counsel on behalf of the Respondent (Plaintiff).
LORD JUSTICE ORMEROD: I will ask Lord Justice Pearson to read the Judgment of the Court in this appeal.
This is an appeal by the Defendants against a Judgment of Mr. Justice Lloyd-Jacob given on the 22nd February, 1961, in favour of the Plaintiff for £2,200 damages in respect of personal injuries caused by a breach of Regulation 29, paragraph (4), of the Building (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations, 1948. It is common ground that the Plaintiff's injuries were caused by a breach of the Regulation. He was injured by falling down a ladder. The ladder was more than 10 ft. in length, it was not Securely fixed at any point, and there was not at the material time any person stationed at the foot of the ladder to prevent slipping. The learned Judge decided that the Defendants were solely responsible for the accident. On this appeal the Defendants have contended that, in the circumstances of the case, the Plaintiff should be held to be solely, or, in the alternative, partly, responsible for the accident. That is the issue in the appeal. There is no appeal with regard to the assessment of the damages.
The Defendants are builders. The Plaintiff, who was 66 years of age at the time of the accident, had been working for the Defendants for 38 years, and for the last 20 years he had been a ganger, that is to say, a man looking after the labourers on the building site. In the morning of the 12th January, 1959, the Plaintiff was working for the Defendants on a site where they were building a school. At about mid-day there was an emergency requirement from Messrs Boote in respect of their premises at Elisabeth Street, Liverpool. They had a large entrance gateway, 36 ft. wide, fronting on the street. Running horizontally along the top of the gateway was a rolled steel joist, from which the four sliding doors were suspended. Each end of the joist was supported by a padstone which was strong enough to take the weight without being crushed, and each padstone was built into or supported by the brick wall on its side of the entrance. A vehicle came out of the premises with too high a load, which struck the joist, with the result that one end of it was partly dislodged from the padstone on which it rested and some of the brickwork was displaced so as to bulge outwards. There was a danger that bricks, or even the joist, might fall into the street. Consequently, Messrs Boote telephoned to the Defendants and spoke to the manager. The manager met William Hanson, the general foreman, and the Plaintiff on the building site. He explained to them that first aid repairs had to be done on that day to Messrs Bootefs premises in order to make them safe until the following day, when permanent repairs would be started. He gave them a drawing which showed how he suggested the work should be done.
William Hanson and the Plaintiff went by car to Messrs Boote's premises. A labourer, Joseph Hanson, who was the brother of William Hanson, went there in a lorry taking the necessary materials and gear for the temporary repairs, and in particular a long ladder. Another labourer, named Forshaw, was taken to the premises either in the car or in the lorry. Having arrived there and inspected the damaged gateway, William Hanson and the Plaintiff decided that the method suggested by the manager was impracticable, and they decided to secure the joist temporarily by fastening it to a beam or stanchion by means of a Spanish windlass. In addition, the insecure brickwork had to be removed.
At about 2.30 p.m. William Hanson returned to the school building site, leaving the Plaintiff and the two labourers to carry out the temporary repair work at Messrs Boote's premises. They placed' the lorry on the pavement to block the passage for pedestrians, who might otherwise come into danger. The long ladder was put in position outside the premises and used by the Plaintiff and Forshaw to go up on to the roof and inspect the damaged brickwork and begin to remove it. While they were using the ladder, Joseph Hanson was "footing" it, that is to say, standing at the foot of it to prevent slipping. It was not practicable to secure the ladder otherwise, and this footing by Hanson was in compliance with the Regulation.
After this initial stage. Forshaw remained continuously on the roof, removing the bricks and throwing them down into the lorry, and the Plaintiff came inside the premises, borrowed a shorter ladder which was about 12 to 14 ft. in length, and erected it inside the premises. The Plaintiff with the assistance of Joseph Hanson tied the joist to a neighbouring beam or stanchion by means of a Spanish windlass. While the Plaintiff was using the ladder, Joseph Hanson was duly footing it.
Joseph Hanson had several tasks. In addition to footing any ladder that was in use, he had to pick up bricks that bounced out of the lorry and to keep away the inquisitive pedestrians who might walk or stand in positions of danger. Nevertheless, under the arrangement which the Plaintiff had made with him, Joseph Hanson did have the duty of footing the ladders as and when that was required. In his examination-in-chief there is this passage: "(Mr. Justice Lloyd-Jacob): You helped him with the windlass. Anything else? (A) To pass the rope over. I had to sit on the boxes to keep the steel rope from twisting. I had to foot his ladder occasionally. (Mr. Wooll): That is particularly what we want to hear. You had to foot his ladder. Did you foot his ladder? (A) Yes, occasionally. (Q) Why did you foot it only occasionally? (A) Because he was not up there all the time. (Q) No, but do you mean this: when he was up it, you footed it? (A) Yes. (Q) That is right, is it? (A) Yes. (Mr. Justice Lloyd-Jacob): That, you knew to be your job? (A) Yes".
William Hanson came back at about 3.40 p.m., and saw and approved the work that had been done, and, after talking to the Plaintiff, went away to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Leach v Standard Telephones & Cables Ltd
-
Timothy Finn (Plaintiff Appellant) v Alfred Sprosson & Company Ltd (Defendants Respondents)
...before us: Gintv v. Belmont Building Ltd., 1959, All England Reports. p. 414, and McMath v. Rimmer Bros. (Liverpool) Ltd., 1961, 3 All England Reports. p. 1154. It seems to me plain that the entire fault rests with Mr Finn himself. He did not securely fix the ladder before he got on it. M......
-
孫春秋 訴 陳仕均及另二人
... ... McMath v. Rimmer Brothers (Liverpool) Ltd. [1962] 1 WLR ... ...