Clark v Hosier & Dickson Ltd. [2003] EWCA Civ 1467 (14 October 2003)

Clark v Hosier & Dickson Ltd. [2003] EWCA Civ 1467 (14 October 2003)

The primary responsibility for the accident rested with the first defendant, whose negligence and breach of contract in failing to properly locate, protect, and record the position of the mains cable, and in providing inaccurate information, were the direct cause of the claimant's injury. The second defendant's failings, while negligent, were secondary and did not match the blameworthiness of the first defendant. The trial judge's equal apportionment of liability was plainly wrong; the first defendant should bear two-thirds of the responsibility.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1467
Parties
Claimant: Terrence Michael Clark; First Defendant/part 20 Defendant/respondent: Hosier & Dickson Limited; Second Defendant/part 20 Claimant/appellant: Method & Madness (A Registered Charity)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Occupiers' Liability, Apportionment of Liability, Building Contracts
Tort Law Contract Law Negligence Occupiers' Liability Apportionment of Liability Building Contracts

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

Parties

Terrence Michael Clark

Claimant

Hosier & Dickson Limited

First Defendant/part 20 Defendant/respondent

Method & Madness (A Registered Charity)

Second Defendant/part 20 Claimant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in apportioning liability equally between the first and second defendants for the claimant's injury.
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant's negligence and breach of contract outweighed the second defendant's negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The primary responsibility for the accident rested with the first defendant, whose negligence and breach of contract in failing to properly locate, protect, and record the position of the mains cable, and in providing inaccurate information, were the direct cause of the claimant's injury. The second defendant's failings, while negligent, were secondary and did not match the blameworthiness of the first defendant. The trial judge's equal apportionment of liability was plainly wrong; the first defendant should bear two-thirds of the responsibility.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Liability apportioned: first defendant two-thirds, second defendant one-third.
  • Respondents to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal.