Judge: Mrs. Justice Jefford DBE

Case Summary:

The Claimant, a carpenter, sustained injuries as a result of a fall at a construction site in August 2018.  Persimmon Homes (D1) were the principal contractor and Macob Scaffolding (D2) was the scaffolding contractor. The trial was limited to the issue of liability. 

The Claimant alleged that the fall was caused by negligence in the setup of the scaffolding, particularly the positioning of ladder clips and the absence of a baseboard. The Defendants, Persimmon and Macob, argued that the scaffolding was properly installed and inspected.

Facts of the Case:

The Claimant was an experienced carpenter and used to working at height.  On the day of the accident, the Claimant was descending a ladder attached to the scaffold when he claimed his hand was ‘fouled’ by an outward-facing ladder clip, causing him to lose his grip with his left hand. 

This forced him to transfer weight to his right, and in so doing the ladder moved to the right.  This caused the Claimant’s right hand to be ‘pinched’ and so he instinctively let go of the ladder with this hand also.  As a result, he fell nearly 5 meters, resulting in a fractured ankle.

The Claimant argued that the ladder clips were negligently installed as they were facing outward, creating an obstruction, and that the ladder was not properly footed on a baseboard, leading to instability. He also contended that the ladder's pitch was too steep, increasing the risk of falling. Persimmon and Macob argued that the scaffolding met safety standards and that any movement of the ladder was due to the Claimant’s own negligence.

The court heard evidence from the Claimant, lay witnesses for all the parties, as well as expert evidence as to scaffolding safety. The experts debated whether the ladder clips should have been installed facing inward and whether the absence of a baseboard contributed to the ladder's instability.

The Claimant's Case:

The Claimant claimed that the ladder clips were negligently installed facing outward, creating an obstruction that led to his fall. He argued that the clips should have been positioned inward to avoid fouling his hand. The Claimant also contended that the ladder was not properly footed on a baseboard, which would have provided stability and prevented the ladder from moving.

The Claimant relied on the Work at Height Regulations 2005.   He argued that Persimmon, as the principal contractor, failed to inspect the scaffolding adequately and remedy any issues. He also relied on the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015, which mandate that principal contractors manage health and safety risks on construction sites.

The Claimant maintained that the ladder's pitch was too steep, increasing the likelihood of a fall. He argued that Persimmon should have ensured the ladder was at an appropriate pitch and that the absence of a baseboard contributed to the ladder's instability, leading to his fall.

The Defendants’ Cases:

Persimmon Homes argued that they had exercised reasonable care by engaging Macob, a specialist scaffolding contractor, and relied on their expertise. They contended that the scaffolding, including the ladder, conformed to safety standards and regulations. Persimmon maintained that the ladder was safe for use and that any movement was due to the Claimant’s own negligence.

Macob Scaffolding similarly denied liability, asserting that the ladder clips were properly installed and did not create an obstruction. They argued that the baseboard was in place when the scaffolding was handed over to Persimmon and that any changes to the ladder's pitch occurred after their involvement.

Both defendants argued that the Claimant was contributorily negligent, as he failed to report any concerns about the ladder's safety and did not take sufficient care when using it. They contended that the Claimant’s actions (sliding his hand down the ladder) contributed to the accident. 

The Court's Decision:

The court found that the accident occurred largely as the Claimant described.  It was found that the ladder clips were not negligently installed though, as there was no established practice requiring them to be positioned inward.

However, the court determined that the absence of a baseboard contributed to the ladder's instability, leading to the Claimant’s fall. The court concluded that Persimmon was liable for failing to ensure the scaffolding was maintained in the way it had been when erected and certified by Macob.  The baseboard had been present when the scaffolding was erected.

The court found that Persimmon's inspections were inadequate, as they failed to observe and remedy the missing baseboard. The court held that the absence of the baseboard was a causative factor in the accident, as it allowed the ladder to move which then pinched the Claimant’s hand, causing him to lose his grip and fall.

The court also considered the issue of contributory negligence and found that the Claimant was partly responsible for the accident. The court found that the Claimant had failed to take reasonable care when descending the ladder, as he did not avoid the clips which were there to be seen.  Further, he did not report the missing baseboard.

Decision:

The court found Persimmon Homes liable for the accident. However, the court also found the Claimant 50% contributorily negligent. Macob Scaffolding was not found liable, as they had installed the baseboard and handed over the scaffolding in compliance with safety standards.

Conclusion:

The decision highlights the importance of adequate inspections of scaffolding, especially to identify and rectify any ad hoc alterations made. It also underscores the need for individual workers to report any safety concerns they have on site. 

Fall from a height remains the most common cause of fatal accident for workers (HSE 2023/4).  Prevention of the same is clearly vital.