Ball v Street

Ball v Street

The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 applied to the defendant, who retained control over the haybob as part of a commercial arrangement. Regulation 5(1) imposes an absolute duty to maintain work equipment in efficient working order and good repair. The failure of the spring, causing injury, constituted a breach of this duty regardless of foreseeability. Damages are reduced by 25% for contributory negligence or co-extensive breach by the claimant.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Mr Ball; Respondent/defendant: Mr Street
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment on Liability Only
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; judgment for claimant on liability at 75% of full value; damages to be assessed.
Legal Topics
Statutory Duty, Maintenance of Work Equipment, Strict Liability, Contributory Negligence
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Contract Law Statutory Duty Maintenance of Work Equipment Strict Liability Contributory Negligence

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

Parties

Mr Ball

Appellant/claimant

Mr Street

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 applied to the defendant in the circumstances
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of Regulation 5(1) imposing an absolute duty to maintain work equipment
  3. 3 Whether foreseeability of injury is relevant to breach of Regulation 5(1)

Ratio Decidendi

The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 applied to the defendant, who retained control over the haybob as part of a commercial arrangement. Regulation 5(1) imposes an absolute duty to maintain work equipment in efficient working order and good repair. The failure of the spring, causing injury, constituted a breach of this duty regardless of foreseeability. Damages are reduced by 25% for contributory negligence or co-extensive breach by the claimant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; judgment for claimant on liability at 75% of full value; damages to be assessed.

Orders

  • Judgment for claimant on liability at 75% of full value of claim.
  • Defendant's cross-appeal dismissed.