Smith v Vange Scaffolding & Engineering Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1970 |
| Year | 1970 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Building - Safety regulations - Application - Safe means of access - Independent scaffolding contractor - Employee injured at premises occupied by main contractors - Whether independent contractor under duty to comply with regulations -
The plaintiff was employed as a scaffolder by the first defendants, who were independent scaffolding contractors working on a building site: the second defendants were the main contractors. The plaintiff was walking back from his place of work to a changing hut at dusk to knock off work, when he fell over a welding cable left suspended about nine inches above the ground by an employee of the second defendants, and he sustained injuries to his left knee. The first defendants had knowledge that the site, which was under the second defendants' control, was excessively untidy, but had made no complaint to the second defendants. No clearing-up gang was employed and no safe routes were provided for the workmen. The plaintiff claimed damages against both defendants alleging, inter alia, negligence, breach of duty under the
On the plaintiff's claim for damages and in the third party proceedings:—
Held, (1) that both defendants owed a duty to the plaintiff: the first defendants because they knew of the condition of the site and made no complaint to the second defendants, and their failure to complain was a cause of the plaintiff's accident sufficiently connected with it to establish liability for breach of their common law duty of care (post, p. 737E). The second defendants were liable in negligence because the plaintiff's accident was a foreseeable consequence of their employee's action, and they also owed a duty to him under the
(2) That the erection of scaffolding was part of a building operation within the meaning of regulation 2 (1) (a) of the Construction (Working Places) Regulations, 1966, and the first defendants' duty under the regulations as independent scaffold contractors was not confined by regulation 3 (1) to those regulations specifically relating to the erection and alteration of scaffolding but they also had to comply with the regulations affecting contractors and employers generally. Accordingly, they were in breach of their statutory duty under regulation 6 to provide a suitable and sufficient access to and egress from the plaintiff's place of work (post, p. 739D).
(3) That in the third party proceedings the first defendants were liable to indemnify the second defendants under the contract which made them liable in respect of personal injuries arising by reason of their default or omission, the plaintiff's injuries being sufficiently connected with the first defendants' omission to make them liable (post, p. 740F, G).
The following case is referred to in the judgment:
Sexton v. Scaffolding (Great Britain) Ltd. [
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Aylward v. Matthews [
Boyle v. Kodak Ltd. [
Braham v. J. Lyons & Co. Ltd. [
Bunker v. Charles Brand Ltd. [
Byers v. Head Wrightson & Co. Ltd. [
Elms v. Foster Wheeler Co. Ltd. [
Knight v. Demolition & Construction Co. [
Latimer v. A.E.C. [
Levesley v. Firth (Thomas) & John Brown [
McGuire v. Power Gas Corporation (Note) [
Singh v. Vange Scaffolding & Engineering Co. Ltd. (
Wheat v. E. Lacon & Co. Ltd. [
ACTION.
This was an action by the plaintiff. Adolphus Smith, against the first defendants, Vange Scaffolding & Engineering Co. Ltd., his employers, and the second defendants, Constructors John Brown Ltd., the main contractors at the Shell Haven Refinery at Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, for damages for personal injuries sustained on October 24, 1966, when in the course of his employment he fell over a cable suspended between six and 12 inches above the ground. The plaintiff alleged breaches by the defendants of their statutory duty under the
The facts are stated in the judgment of MacKenna J.
J. L. Williams for the plaintiff.
J. R. Phillips, Q.C. and Henry Brooke for the first defendants.
P. H. Ripman for the second defendants.
November 10. MACKENNA J. read the following judgment. In 1966 the plaintiff was employed by Vange Scaffolding and Engineering Company Ltd., the first defendants. They had a contract with Constructors John Brown Ltd., the second defendants. Under the contract they did whatever scaffolding work the second defendants required at the site of the Shell Haven Refinery, Stanford-le-Hope, where the second defendants were constructing works for the oil company which owned the site. At about 5 o'clock on the afternoon of October 24, 1966, when the plaintiff was going from the place where he worked to the changing hut, at the end of the day's work, he suffered the accident for which he claims damages in this action against both defendants. He tripped over a welding cable and injured his left knee.
The circumstances of the accident were investigated at the hearing very fully, and I shall summarise my findings as briefly as possible. For this purpose I shall refer to a sketch plan and to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v Swan Brothers Ltd and Forth-Ryco Ltd and Marriott International Services Ltd 1986 Civil Jur. No. 123
...v Balfore, Beattic & Co. Ltd.SC [1951] SC 712 Wilson & Clyde Coal Co. Ltd. v EnglishELR [1938] AC 57 Smith v Vange ScaffoldingWLR [1970] 1 WLR 733 Olsen v Lorry and Gravesend Aviation LtdUNK [1936] 3 All ER 241 Merrington v Ironbridge Metal WorksUNK [1952] 2 All ER 1101 Bowater v Rowley Reg......
-
Fitzroy Anthony Cameron v Ashli O'Connor
...onto an adjacent property. Servant or agent 39 The principle of agency was examined by the Privy Council in Rambarran v Gurrucharan [1970] 1 ALL ER 249, In that situation, the appellant was the owner of a motor car which he permitted three of his sons who were licensed drivers, to drive bo......