John Brown successfully defends claim arising out of an accident on a building site in 4 day High Court trial

John Brown recently acted for the successful Second Defendant in the case of Jones v Persimmon Homes & Macob Scaffolding [2024] EWHC 2957 (TCC). John was instructed by Huw Edwards of Kennedys Law LLP. The claim against the Second Defendant was dismissed after a 4 day trial on the issue of liability only heard before Mrs Justice Jefford DBE.

The case involved an accident when the Claimant was working as a carpenter fitting fascias and soffits during the construction of a house. The First Defendant was the housing developer and the Second Defendant engaged as the scaffolding contractor. In order to carry out his work the Claimant was using scaffold with a single access ladder. The Claimant’s case was that in order to descend the ladder from the second lift of the scaffold he placed his left hand on the left stile of the ladder but it was fouled by the clamp which was facing outwards. He instinctively let go of the stile with his left hand and, in so doing, transferred his weight to his right hand side. That caused the ladder to move and his right hand was pinched between the right hand stile and the clamp on that side. Instinctively letting go of the ladder he fell backwards on to the ground. The fall was one of nearly 5 metres and he sustained a serious orthopaedic injury to his left leg as a result.

The Claimant’s in respect of liability was as follows:

• The clamp/clip on the left hand side of the ladder was positioned with the unused portion facing outwards rather than inwards which created an obstruction and led to the sequence of events which caused the fall. It is a necessary part of that case that the fixing of the clamp in this manner was negligent.
• The feet of the ladder were not placed on a baseboard. The feet ought to have been placed on a baseboard to provide stability to the ladder and the failure to place the feet on a baseboard was negligent. The absence of a baseboard causatively contributed to the movement of the ladder.
• The ladder was set at too steep a pitch. It was set at a pitch of between 1 in 4.6 and 1 in 5.3 but ought not to have been at a pitch greater than 1 in 4. The pitch increased the likelihood of someone falling backwards (if they lost their grip) and of being unable to regain their grip.

At trial, as well as relying upon factual evidence, the parties each relied upon an expert engineer who all gave oral evidence at trial. By the time of closing submissions the Claimant was forced to abandon the allegations in respect of the absence of the baseboard and the incorrect pitch of the ladder as against the Second Defendant, it being accepted that the Second Defendant’s employees had erected the scaffolding correctly, with the baseboard installed and the ladder set at the appropriate pitch when handed over to the First Defendant.

In respect of the issue of whether it was negligent to install the ladder clips facing outwards, the parties’ respective expert engineers agreed that there was no guidance upon whether such double-sided clips should be installed on the outside of the ladder stiles (with the unused portion facing outwards, as at the time of the accident) or on the inside of the ladder stiles (unused portion facing inwards, as was done after the accident). Whether the smaller or the larger side of the clip would be used to secure the ladder would depend on the dimensions of the stile. However, the experts did not agree as to whether, despite the absence of such guidance, the clips should be installed with the unused portion facing inwards or outwards. The Claimant’s expert’s view was the former but in both of the Defendant’s expert’s opinion it could be either. They also disagreed as to the safety risk posed by the clips facing outwards.

Ultimately Mrs Justice Jefford DBE accepted the common sense point made by both Defendants that, whether the clip was fixed with the unused portion facing inwards or outwards, that unused part still forms an obstruction to a person’s hands and the extent of that obstruction depends on the way in which an individual climbs a ladder. Some people hold the stiles while others will hold the rungs. If the clip is fixed inward then it would be more likely to “foul” a person’s hands if they are holding the rungs.

There was further a body of evidence from the witnesses of fact as to common practice, which was that such clamps were a common type and there was no right or wrong way to fix them. The judge accepted this evidence as being entirely credible and attached weight to the fact that there is no established “good practice” of placing the clips facing inwards. Taking all these matters together, the judge rejected the contention that it is good practice to fix the clips facing inwards or that it was negligent to fix them facing outwards and, although the sequence of events that led to the accident started with the Claimant catching his hand on the clip, no liability attached to either Defendant in this respect.

Whilst liability was found to attach to the First Defendant due to the absence of the baseboard a significant reduction of 50% was made for contributory negligence due to the Claimant failing to take proper care when descending the ladder and his using the ladder whilst the baseboard was missing.

A copy of the full judgment can be found here.

 

John Brown is ranked in both the Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners as a Leading Junior in personal injury. He is regularly instructed in complex and high value catastrophic injury claims. He has experience of serious orthopaedic, spinal, amputation and chronic pain claims and a particular interest in those involving brain injury. For further information, please contact his Clerking Team.

---

• Share article:

---