Hyndman v Brown & Anor [2012] NICA 3 (17 February 2012)

Hyndman v Brown & Anor [2012] NICA 3 (17 February 2012)

The second respondent did not have sufficient factual control over the harvester or its operation at the time of the injury to impose liability under PUWER or in negligence; control was limited to ownership and maintenance, not to instruction or training of operators.

Citation
[2012] NICA 3
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Stephen Hyndman; First Defendant/respondent: William Brown; Second Defendant/respondent: Colin Bradley Limited
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
17 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal against second respondent's liability dismissed; appeal against quantum of damages allowed by consent.
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (puwer), Duty of Care, Control of Work Equipment
Personal Injury Employment Law Health and Safety Vicarious Liability Negligence Breach of Statutory Duty Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (puwer) Duty of Care +1 more

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

Parties

Stephen Hyndman

Plaintiff/appellant

William Brown

First Defendant/respondent

Colin Bradley Limited

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second respondent had sufficient control of the harvester to be liable under PUWER 1998
  2. 2 Whether a duty of care existed between the second respondent and the appellant
  3. 3 Whether the second respondent breached statutory duties under Regulations 8 and 9 of PUWER

Ratio Decidendi

The second respondent did not have sufficient factual control over the harvester or its operation at the time of the injury to impose liability under PUWER or in negligence; control was limited to ownership and maintenance, not to instruction or training of operators.

Court Disposition

Appeal against second respondent's liability dismissed; appeal against quantum of damages allowed by consent.

Orders

  • Substitute damages figure of £90,085.19, including agreed interest, for previous award.
  • No liability found against second respondent.