Clark v Hosier & Dickson Ltd.

Clark v Hosier & Dickson Ltd.

The first defendant (contractor) was primarily responsible for the accident due to failure to locate and secure the mains cable, provide accurate information, and supervise subcontractors. The second defendant (owner) was also negligent for failing to escalate the issue to the architect or Electricity Board, but their blameworthiness was significantly less. The trial judge's equal apportionment was plainly wrong; the first defendant should bear two-thirds of the liability.

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 on Apportionment of Liability
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 1
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 on Apportionment of Liability

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 outweighed that of the second defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant (contractor) was primarily responsible for the accident due to failure to locate and secure the mains cable, provide accurate information, and supervise subcontractors. The second defendant (owner) was also negligent for failing to escalate the issue to the architect or Electricity Board, but their blameworthiness was significantly less. The trial judge's equal apportionment was plainly wrong; the first defendant should bear two-thirds of the liability.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Apportionment of liability amended: first defendant two-thirds responsible, second defendant one-third responsible
  • Respondents to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal