Didon v Roucou Construction Company & Ors (CS90/2003) [2016] SCSC 624 (4 September 2016)

Didon v Roucou Construction Company & Ors (CS90/2003) [2016] SCSC 624 (4 September 2016)

The first defendant, as employer, was primarily liable for failing to provide a safe system of work, supervision, and protective equipment, and for exposing the plaintiff to a known danger. The third and fourth defendants were secondarily liable for failing to ensure safety and insurance for the apprentice and for not removing the danger from the premises. The second defendant (PUC) was not liable as there was no evidence of fault or causal connection. Liability was apportioned: 50% to the first defendant, 20% to the third defendant, and 30% to the fourth defendant. The defence of volenti non fit injuria was rejected.

Citation
[2016] SCSC 624
Parties
Plaintiff: Aubrey Didon; First Defendant: Roucou Construction Co. (Pty) Ltd; Second Defendant: Public Utilities Corporation; Third Defendant: Ministry of Employment & Social Affairs; Fourth Defendant: Ministry of Local Government Youth & Sport
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
4 September 2016
Case Number
CS90/2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Delict Claim / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; damages awarded and apportioned among defendants; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Damages, Workplace Safety, Apprenticeship Liability
Source Language
English
Tort Law Employment Law Employer's Liability Negligence Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Damages Workplace Safety Apprenticeship 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aubrey Didon

Plaintiff

Roucou Construction Co. (Pty) Ltd

First Defendant

Public Utilities Corporation

Second Defendant

Ministry of Employment & Social Affairs

Third Defendant

Ministry of Local Government Youth & Sport

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Delict Claim / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants are liable in delict for injuries suffered by the plaintiff due to electrocution at a construction site
  2. 2 Whether there was contributory negligence and to what extent liability should be apportioned among the defendants
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was an employee or apprentice for purposes of liability

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant, as employer, was primarily liable for failing to provide a safe system of work, supervision, and protective equipment, and for exposing the plaintiff to a known danger. The third and fourth defendants were secondarily liable for failing to ensure safety and insurance for the apprentice and for not removing the danger from the premises. The second defendant (PUC) was not liable as there was no evidence of fault or causal connection. Liability was apportioned: 50% to the first defendant, 20% to the third defendant, and 30% to the fourth defendant. The defence of volenti non fit injuria was rejected.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; damages awarded and apportioned among defendants; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • 1st Defendant to pay Rs 225,700 with interest at 4% per annum from date of plaint.
  • 3rd Defendant to pay Rs 90,280 with interest at 4% per annum from date of plaint.