Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club
The club was liable because it failed to take reasonable care in selecting a competent contractor for an extra-hazardous activity, did not check for public liability insurance or safety plans, and thus owed a duty of care to the claimant, who was lawfully on the premises and foreseeably at risk.
- Parties
- Claimant/respondent: Michael John Bottomley; 1st Defendants/appellants: Todmorden Cricket Club
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 07 November 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Vicarious Liability, Duty of Care, Selection of Independent Contractors, Extra Hazardous Activities, Negligence, Public Liability Insurance
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Michael John Bottomley
Claimant/respondent
Todmorden Cricket Club
1st Defendants/appellants
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the club was vicariously liable for the negligence of independent contractors performing extra-hazardous activities
- 2 Whether the club failed to take reasonable care in selecting a competent contractor
- 3 Whether the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 superseded the common law principles in Honeywill v Larkin
Ratio Decidendi
The club was liable because it failed to take reasonable care in selecting a competent contractor for an extra-hazardous activity, did not check for public liability insurance or safety plans, and thus owed a duty of care to the claimant, who was lawfully on the premises and foreseeably at risk.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Permission to appeal refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment