Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club [2003]

Case name & citation: Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club [2003] EWCA Civ 1575

Court and jurisdiction: Court of Appeal (Civil Division), England & Wales
Decided on: 07 November 2003
The bench of judges: Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Clarke
Area of law: Occupier’s liability; contractors taking assistance of a helper

What is the case about?

Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club [2003] is a tort law case on occupiers’ liability. It says that checking insurance might be an important element when determining if an occupier has taken reasonable care in selecting contractors.

Facts of the case (Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club)

In November 1997, the defendant Cricket Club engaged a two-man stunt team named Chaos Encounter to perform a pyrotechnic show as part of a fund-raising event. Chaos Encounter had requested the claimant to assist them. A pair of mortars, which were metal tubes set into the ground and filled with petrol, were included in the display. Primers in the form of plastic bags filled with gunpowder were to be dropped into the mortars by the claimant. The intent was that the mortars would then be fired using an electric charge from a car battery operated by another member of the team and connected to the mortars through a wire. While the claimant was lowering one of the bags into the mortar, the contents of the tube exploded and caused him serious burns.

What was the issue?

Was the defendant Cricket Club liable for the injuries sustained by the claimant?

Judgment of the Court in Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club

The judge at first instance determined that the entire operation was extremely dangerous, that Chaos Encounter was an amateurish organization operating in a field that required the highest degree of professionalism if danger was to be avoided, and that the defendant Cricket Club had failed to exercise reasonable care in selecting them. Given the facts, the defendant was liable for the negligent system that Chaos Encounter had followed and which led to the claimant’s injuries.

While addressing the appeal, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the club owed a relevant duty of care to the claimant. It was held that it is possible that an occupier might be held liable for the torts of an independent contractor if he failed to exercise reasonable care in satisfying himself that the contractor was competent and that the work was properly done. The club ought to have taken sufficient care to select competent and safe contractors for the conduct of the dangerous pyrotechnics display on its land and it had failed to do so. One of the reasons was the absence of public liability insurance. The occupier (club) had failed to check whether proper insurance was in place. Checking the contractor’s insurance was considered to be an important issue in judging the competence of the contractor in this case.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from tort law:

Hope you found this helpful!

A Quick Summary of Stone v Taffe [1974]

Case name & citation: Stone v Taffe [1974] 1 WLR 1575; [1974] 3 All ER 1016

Court and jurisdiction: Court of Appeal, England and Wales

Year of the case: 1974

Area of law: Occupier’s liability; restrictions of time

What is the case about?

Occupiers hold a duty of care towards all lawful visitors on their premises. But sometimes a difficult situation arises when an employee of the occupier violates an express instruction not to allow visitors after a certain time. In that case, does the occupier still owe a duty of care to those visitors or not? Stone v Taffe [1974] is a case on this issue.

Facts of the case (Stone v Taffe)

The defendants in Stone v Taffe owned a public house that was administrated by their servant, Taffe. Taffe allowed Stone (among others) to stay on the premises until 1 a.m., in violation of the licensing laws and contrary to clear instructions. Taffe then negligently extinguished (or failed to light) the lamp over the staircase, which was structurally safe, causing Stone to fall downstairs and die.

The defendants denied liability on the grounds that the claimant was a trespasser and not a lawful visitor since he was there after closing time.

Issue raised

Were the defendants (occupiers) liable or not?

Judgment of the Court in Stone v Taffe

The Court of Appeal determined that Taffe was acting in the course of his employment and that Stone was still a lawful visitor at the time.

To resolve the issue, the following question was considered:

“Did Mr. Stone know, or ought he on a balance of probabilities to be held to have known, that his permission to be there ended reasonably soon after 10.30 p.m.?”

It was held that Stone was a lawful visitor since he had not been made aware of the time restriction by the servant, Taffe. He did not know of the prohibition that no visitors were allowed to remain after closing time.

Therefore, the defendants (occupiers) were held liable. And as far as the issue of vicarious liability was concerned, the Court decided that Taffe was acting in the course of his employment, despite his ignoring instructions. Therefore, the occupiers were liable.

The legal point emerging from the case

Restrictions by time must be made equally clear to the visitor.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from tort law:

Hope you found this helpful!

A Case Summary of Roles v Nathan [1963]

Case name & citation: Roles v Nathan [1963] 1 WLR 1117; [1963] 2 All ER 908

Court and jurisdiction: Court of Appeal, England & Wales
Decided on: 15 May 1963
The bench of judges: Lord Denning MR, Lord Justice Harman and Lord Justice Pearson
Area of law: Occupier’s liability; risks ordinarily incidental to certain occupations

What is the case about?

Roles v Nathan [1963] is a very tragic case in tort law. Here, the Court of Appeal addressed the scope of Section 2(3)(b) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 in relation to the death of two chimney sweeps. Given below are its facts.

Facts of the case (Roles v Nathan)

Two men had been engaged as chimney sweeps by an occupier, Mr Nathan at Manchester Assembly Rooms. They had died after inhaling carbon monoxide fumes while they were cleaning the flue of a central heating boiler and sealing up a sweep hole in the chimney, the boiler being alight. Their widows brought an action against the occupier claiming that he was at fault and in breach of the duty of care laid down under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. Evidence showed that the occupier had warned them not to continue working while the boiler was on fire due to the danger posed by the fumes, and had indeed physically removed them from the danger area on two occasions.

What was the issue?

The question was whether the occupier could be held liable for this tragic accident.

Judgment of the Court in Roles v Nathan

It was determined that the occupier was not liable because he had in fact fulfilled his duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 by informing them of the specific dangers.

Further, occupiers are entitled to presume that contractors will recognize and guard against any risks that are ordinarily associated with their employment. In this regard, Lord Denning pointed out that the risks involved were ordinarily incidental to a chimney sweep’s job and that the men should have been aware of them and taken precautions to avoid them. He went on to say that if the deaths had been caused by something unconnected to the business of chimney sweeps, such as if the stairs leading to the cellar had collapsed, then the occupier would have been held accountable.

The legal point emerging from the case

Section 2(3)(b) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 applies when an occupier hires an expert to perform work on the premises. In these situations, it is presumed that the expert is aware of any risks associated with their work and that they will take precautions to avoid them while on the premises.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from tort law:

A Quick Summary of Haseldine v Daw [1941]

Case name & citation: Haseldine v Daw & Son Ltd [1941] 3 All ER 156; [1941] 2 KB 343

Court and jurisdiction: Court of Appeal, England and Wales
Year of the case: 1941
The learned judge: Scott LJ
Area of law: Occupier’s liability; contractors doing technical work

What is the case about?

Haseldine v Daw & Son Ltd [1941] is a tort law case concerning the liability of an occupier for work performed by independent contractors. It says that a reasonable occupier is expected to hire professionals to inspect systems that he cannot check himself, such as electrical wiring or a lift since he does not have the requisite technical knowledge.

Facts of the case (Haseldine v Daw)

The occupiers of a block of flats employed a firm of lift engineers that they found to be competent to maintain the lift of their premises. The engineers were employed to make periodical inspections of the lift and to adjust it where necessary. On one visit, they had been negligent in adequately repairing the lift. The plaintiff was consequently injured as the lift suddenly fell from the top to the bottom of the lift shaft.

What was the issue here?

The issue, in this case, was whether the occupiers of the premises were liable for the injury caused to the plaintiff. Or whether the engineering company was to be held liable for not effectively repairing the lift.

Judgment of the Court in Haseldine v Daw

The Court of Appeal decided in favour of the occupiers.

The occupiers were not held liable because they had employed engineers who appeared to be competent to undertake the work. They could not be expected to check if the work had been done properly since it was too technical.

The reasoning behind the decision

In general, the occupier shall not be held accountable for the torts committed by independent contractors on the premises if he or she was reasonable in hiring the contractor and took reasonable steps to check the work. Once again, if the work is highly technical, he or she would not be expected to know of defects.

Quote from the case

“The landlord of a block of flats, as occupier of the lifts, does not profess as such to be either an electrical or, as in this case, a hydraulic engineer. Having no technical skill, he cannot rely on his own judgment, and the duty of care towards his invitees requires him to obtain and follow good technical advice. If he did not do so, he would, indeed, be guilty of negligence. To hold him responsible for the misdeeds of his independent contractor would be to make him insure the safety of his lift.”

(As per Scott LJ at p.356)

List of references:

You might also like:

More from tort law:

Wheeler v Copas [1981]: A Quick Summary

Case name & citation: Wheeler v Copas [1981] 3 All ER 405

Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Year of the case: 1981
The learned judge: Chapman J
Area of law: Occupier’s liability; contributory negligence

What is the case about?

Wheeler v Copas [1981] is a tort law case that dealt with the question of whether a “ladder” can satisfy the definition of “premises” in order to constitute liability under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. Further, it dealt with the duty of a person to supply appropriate materials to the contractors for the construction.

Facts of the case (Wheeler v Copas)

A farmer engaged a firm of bricklayers for the purpose of building a house on his farm. He contracted for labour only and undertook to provide the required materials and equipment. The plaintiff was a partner in the bricklaying company. For carrying out the work, he needed a ladder and selected one of the ladders from the farm. While using it, the ladder collapsed and the plaintiff was injured. He sued the defendant (farmer) for damages for personal injury on the basis that the defendant was liable under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.

What was the issue here?

In this case, the legal issue was whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. If this could be shown, it was critical to determine the extent to which each of the parties had contributed to the negligence and accident.

Judgment of the Court in Wheeler v Copas

The judge decided that the farmer was not liable under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 since even though the Act covers moveable structures, such as vessels, vehicles and aircraft, and that it could apply to a ladder, the defendant could not be deemed to be an “occupier”. This is so because he had handed over the ladder to the contractors; it was no longer under his control.

After this, the court considered that the defendant still owed a duty of care. He was negligent as he did not provide suitable equipment for the job and failed to equip the plaintiff with an adequate ladder. But this liability was limited due to the fact that the plaintiff should have recognized the problem with the ladder before beginning his work. Hence, he contributed to the negligence.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from tort law: