McGarvey v Eve NCI Ltd & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 374 (26 February 2002)

McGarvey v Eve NCI Ltd & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 374 (26 February 2002)

The main contractor (appellant) assumed responsibility for the claimant's safety by instructing him to use a ladder that was wholly inappropriate and unsafe for the work, regardless of the claimant's employment status or training. The judge's apportionment of liability was justified on the facts.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 374
Parties
Claimant: McGarvey; First Defendant/respondent: EVE NCI LTD; Second Defendant/appellant: N G BAILEY & CO LTD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Leeds County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Negligence, Assumption of Responsibility, Apportionment of Liability, Workplace Safety
Tort Law Personal Injury Occupational Health and Safety Employer's Liability Negligence Assumption of Responsibility Apportionment of Liability 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

McGarvey

Claimant

EVE NCI LTD

First Defendant/respondent

N G BAILEY & CO LTD

Second Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Leeds County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant (main contractor) owed a duty of care to the claimant, an employee of a subcontractor, for injuries sustained while using unsafe equipment provided by the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the judge was correct in apportioning liability between the main contractor and the subcontractor.

Ratio Decidendi

The main contractor (appellant) assumed responsibility for the claimant's safety by instructing him to use a ladder that was wholly inappropriate and unsafe for the work, regardless of the claimant's employment status or training. The judge's apportionment of liability was justified on the facts.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No change to apportionment of liability; judgment of the lower court affirmed.