Biddick (Deceased) , Representatives of the Estate of v Morcom

Biddick (Deceased) , Representatives of the Estate of v Morcom

Mr Biddick assumed a limited duty of care by undertaking to keep the loft hatch latch closed. His failure to properly perform this task contributed to the accident, but Mr Morcom was principally to blame due to his unsafe work method and failure to assess risk. The judge's apportionment of liability (one-third to Mr Biddick, two-thirds to Mr Morcom) was upheld.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: The Personal Representatives of the Estate of Cyril Biddick (Deceased); Claimant/respondent: Mark Morcom
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal and cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Contributory Negligence, Occupiers' Liability
Tort Personal Injury Negligence Duty of Care Contributory Negligence Occupiers' Liability

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Personal Representatives of the Estate of Cyril Biddick (Deceased)

Appellant/defendant

Mark Morcom

Claimant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the estate of Mr Biddick owed a duty of care to Mr Morcom
  2. 2 Whether Mr Morcom was contributorily negligent and to what extent
  3. 3 Causation of the accident and liability apportionment

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Biddick assumed a limited duty of care by undertaking to keep the loft hatch latch closed. His failure to properly perform this task contributed to the accident, but Mr Morcom was principally to blame due to his unsafe work method and failure to assess risk. The judge's apportionment of liability (one-third to Mr Biddick, two-thirds to Mr Morcom) was upheld.

Court Disposition

appeal and cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for Mr Morcom for one third of his damages to be assessed
  • No change to apportionment of liability (one-third to Mr Biddick, two-thirds to Mr Morcom)