Principal contractor liable for fall from ladder

The claimant was a self-employed labour only carpenter working on the construction of a housing development. The development was being undertaken by the first defendant, Persimmon Homes Limited, who had instructed the second defendant, Macob Scaffolding Limited, to install scaffolding on the site. The said scaffolding was accessed via a ladder, which was fixed to the scaffolding with clamps.

On the day of the accident the claimant was attempting to descend the ladder when he caught his left hand on a clamp that was facing outwards. He instinctively let go of the ladder with that hand, shifting his weight to the right hand. He alleged that this caused the ladder to move, which meant his right hand became pinched between the right-hand stile and a clamp. He therefore let go with that hand, and as a result fell approximately 5m to the ground. He subsequently alleged that the ladder shifted because it was not placed on a baseboard. He alleged negligence and breach of duty for failing to place the ladder on a baseboard, installing the clamps facing outwards so that they created an obstruction, and setting the ladder at too steep a pitch.

Liability was denied by both defendants.

At trial it was accepted that there was no guidance on which way clamps could be installed. They would attach in both directions. As such it was not negligent to fix the clamps facing outwards even if the claimant did catch his hand on it. It was further accepted that there had been a baseboard under the ladder when the scaffolding was installed by the second defendant. This was not under the ladder post-accident, and so at some point had moved.

Whilst the first defendant tried to produce evidence that they inspected the scaffolding and ladder two days before the accident and no issue was noted about the missing baseboard so it must have been in place, the court was not persuaded of the same. The person who carried out these checks could not specifically recall the baseboard in place, and whilst it was stated that she would have noticed had it been missing, she also maintained that a baseboard was only needed for ladders on soft ground. She was also noted to have climbed the ladder post-accident, whilst the baseboard was missing, indicating that she was not concerned by the same. There was no evidence to explain why it would have been moved between the inspection and the accident and as such the court found that it was more likely to have been displaced prior to the inspection. On that basis it was missing when the scaffolding was last inspected. The failure to observe that the baseboard was missing was a failure to exercise reasonable care.

Mrs Justice Jefford concluded that it was also more likely than not that the ladder moved, and did so because it was not firmly footed on the baseboard.

Given that the baseboard was initially installed by Macob no liability applied to them. The failure to heed the dislodgment after installation lay with the main contractor. There was however 50% contributory negligence on the claimant. He went up the ladder without the baseboard in place but did not replace it or report the issue despite being aware of the obligation to report problems. He also failed to heed the clamps, despite being on notice of their presence, and could have easily moved his hands past the same without catching had he paid the appropriate attention.

Forbes Comment

 Given that the HSE has reported there were 51 fatalities within the construction industry for 2023/24, all companies working within this sector need to ensure that they have detailed inspections, particularly in respect of work at height, which remains, once of the most common causes of injury. Given that a claim will often take years to reach a trial, and memories will inevitability fade during that period, it would be sensible for detailed inspection records to be kept which confirm the key areas checked on each occasion to support any witness testimony. This claim does however issue a valuable reminder that sizeable contributory negligence can be found in such claim scenarios.

If you need advice in respect of your risks in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact us here at Forbes.