Cooper v Carillion Plc

Cooper v Carillion Plc

It was not reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would suffer injury by acting as he did, given the absence of evidence that holes were ever covered by unmarked, unsecured plywood boards on the site. The judge was wrong to find contributory negligence.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Paul Arthur John Cooper; Defendant/respondent: Carillion PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Plymouth County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Employer's Statutory Duty, Workplace Safety
Tort Law Employment Law Contributory Negligence Employer's Statutory Duty Workplace Safety

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Arthur John Cooper

Claimant/appellant

Carillion PLC

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Plymouth County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was guilty of contributory negligence for his workplace injury
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in attributing 10% liability to the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

It was not reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would suffer injury by acting as he did, given the absence of evidence that holes were ever covered by unmarked, unsecured plywood boards on the site. The judge was wrong to find contributory negligence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Defendants to pay the claimant's costs of the trial of the preliminary issue and the appeal