James v Butler

The respondent failed to take reasonable care by not ensuring the rafter was properly secured, resulting in its fall and the appellant's injury. The standard of care is objective and relates to the activity, not the actor's experience. There was no evidence to excuse the respondent's error as reasonable. The appellant was not contributorily negligent as there was no reason for him to believe it was unsafe to enter.

Parties: Claimant/respondent: Raymond William James; Defendant/appellant: Alan Butler
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 17 May 2005
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision
Outcome: Appeal allowed; judgment for claimant/respondent
Legal Topics: Negligence, Standard of Care, Contributory Negligence, Duty of Care

Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Standard of Care Contributory Negligence Duty of Care

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Raymond William James

Claimant/respondent

Alan Butler

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision

Legal Issues

1 Whether the respondent was negligent in failing to secure the rafter, causing injury to the appellant
2 Whether the standard of care applied was appropriate for the respondent's skill level
3 Whether the appellant was contributorily negligent

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for claimant/respondent

Orders

Claimant to have the judgment sum of £44,525.32
Appellant to have his costs in the Court of Appeal and 50% of his costs below, to be assessed if not agreed