Wallis v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd

Wallis v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd

The employer was not in breach of its common law or statutory duty of care. The accident was not reasonably foreseeable, and the sole cause was the claimant's own decision to take a hazardous route. Even though there was a breach of regulation 17(2) of the Workplace Regulations 1992, it was not causative of the accident. The claimant's actions constituted a new and unforeseeable intervening act, breaking the chain of causation.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Graham Victor Wallis; Respondent/defendant: Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Employer's Duty of Care, Foreseeability, Statutory Duty, Workplace Safety, Contributory Negligence
Employment Law Personal Injury Health and Safety Employer's Duty of Care Foreseeability Statutory Duty Workplace Safety 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Graham Victor Wallis

Appellant/claimant

Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer breached its common law or statutory duty of care to the claimant by failing to provide suitable access to the track
  2. 2 Whether the accident was reasonably foreseeable by the employer
  3. 3 Whether there was a breach of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 or the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992

Ratio Decidendi

The employer was not in breach of its common law or statutory duty of care. The accident was not reasonably foreseeable, and the sole cause was the claimant's own decision to take a hazardous route. Even though there was a breach of regulation 17(2) of the Workplace Regulations 1992, it was not causative of the accident. The claimant's actions constituted a new and unforeseeable intervening act, breaking the chain of causation.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs