Biddick (Deceased) , Representatives of the Estate of v Morcom [2014] EWCA Civ 182 (27 February 2014)

Biddick (Deceased) , Representatives of the Estate of v Morcom [2014] EWCA Civ 182 (27 February 2014)

Mr Biddick assumed a limited duty of care by involving himself in the task of keeping the loft hatch latch closed. His negligent performance of this task (leaving his post and partially disengaging the latch) was causative of Mr Morcom's injury. However, Mr Morcom was principally to blame for adopting an unsafe method of work, justifying a two-thirds reduction for contributory negligence.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Civ 182
Parties
Appellant/defendant: The Personal Representatives of the Estate of Cyril Biddick (Deceased); Claimant/respondent: Mark Morcom
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Contributory Negligence, Occupiers' Liability
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Duty of Care Contributory Negligence Occupiers' Liability

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Personal Representatives of the Estate of Cyril Biddick (Deceased)

Appellant/defendant

Mark Morcom

Claimant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the estate of Mr Biddick is liable in negligence for injuries suffered by Mr Morcom while working on the loft hatch.
  2. 2 Whether Mr Morcom was contributorily negligent and to what extent.

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Biddick assumed a limited duty of care by involving himself in the task of keeping the loft hatch latch closed. His negligent performance of this task (leaving his post and partially disengaging the latch) was causative of Mr Morcom's injury. However, Mr Morcom was principally to blame for adopting an unsafe method of work, justifying a two-thirds reduction for contributory negligence.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for Mr Morcom for one third of his damages to be assessed.
  • No change to the apportionment of liability: one-third to Mr Biddick's estate, two-thirds to Mr Morcom.