Anderson v Newham College Of Further Education [2002] EWCA Civ 505 (25 March 2002)

Anderson v Newham College Of Further Education [2002] EWCA Civ 505 (25 March 2002)

The defendant breached statutory duty by positioning the whiteboard frame so its feet projected into the gangway, creating a tripping hazard. The claimant was contributorily negligent for failing to notice and avoid the obvious hazard, but the apportionment of 90% was excessive; a just and equitable apportionment is 50/50. The concept of 100% contributory negligence is not applicable where the defendant retains any liability.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 505
Parties
Claimant/respondent: William Percy Anderson; Defendant/appellant: Newham College of Further Education
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Central London County Court, Liability Only
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Breach of Statutory Duty, Contributory Negligence, Workplace Safety, Apportionment of Damages
Tort Law Employment Law Health and Safety Law Employer's Liability Breach of Statutory Duty Contributory Negligence Workplace Safety Apportionment of Damages

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Percy Anderson

Claimant/respondent

Newham College of Further Education

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Central London County Court, Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached statutory duty under Regulation 12(3) of the Workplace (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 by failing to keep the workplace free from tripping hazards
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was contributorily negligent and to what extent
  3. 3 Whether 100% contributory negligence is legally permissible in breach of statutory duty cases

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant breached statutory duty by positioning the whiteboard frame so its feet projected into the gangway, creating a tripping hazard. The claimant was contributorily negligent for failing to notice and avoid the obvious hazard, but the apportionment of 90% was excessive; a just and equitable apportionment is 50/50. The concept of 100% contributory negligence is not applicable where the defendant retains any liability.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Appellant to pay claimant's costs summarily assessed at £4,808.18
  • Apportionment of liability set at 50% to each party