Employees of one company were injured whilst working cleaning the premises of another. The issue was as to apportionment of the personal injury damages between the two companies.
Held: There was an error of approach by the Recorder entitling the Court of Appeal to interfere with the apportionment. The defendant employer’s duty was not delegable, and their substantial presence in the premises placed a duty upon them to check the safety of the premises and was a very significant factor in any proper apportionment. Where employees of a company were working at a remote site, the employers retained the primary responsibility for ensuring that a safe place of work and method of work were provided, even when this extended to the condition of fittings at the remote premises. In this case the employers had 75 per cent and the owners of the building 25 per cent responsibility.
Judges:
Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Laws
Citations:
Gazette 02-Sep-1999, Times 18-Aug-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1831
Links:
Statutes:
Civil Liability (Contributions) Act 1978 2
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – British Fame v MacGregor (‘The MacGregor’) HL 1947
Two ships had collided. One party sought to appeal the apportionment of damages.
Held: The House considered the reluctance of an appellate court to interefere with an apportionment of damages applied by the court at first instance: ‘It seems . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health and Safety, Personal Injury, Damages
Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77796