Are you responsible when someone has an accident on your premises?

pat9367

I'm wording this as carefully as I can, having fallen foul of the rule about not seeking legal advice. I'm trying to understand a very broad point here. Maybe there's a law, maybe there isn't, but I'd like to know what people's OPINION is of this.

And let me be clear at the outset. I am not any of the people mentioned.

A hires B to do a job. B subcontracts to C.
B and C visit A's premises together.
C commences the work, while A and B look on.
C is injured in an accident, using equipment which does not belong to A (could be B's or C's)

Question: Can A be at fault?

Zambia

Well done for re-wording that I would be very interested to hear responses on this.

A common sales technique is people stating our staff are fully insured to works on your premises. However does this offer protection for the Landowner?

Is it the case that if anything happens to anyone on your property are you liable and if so under what law?

seamus

Zambia wrote: »

A common sales technique is people stating our staff are fully insured to works on your premises. However does this offer protection for the Landowner?

As best I understand it, they're referring to two types of insurance in these cases:

- Public liability insurance; Where any injury which occurs onsite, such as employee falling off a ladder, or a visitor tripping over a stray brick, is covered. Where this insurance is not in place, the landowner would be liable for these costs. Most home insurance policies include public liability, but I don't know if these would extend to cover injuries while the site is being worked on.

- Professional indemnity insurance. This covers the business person for any costs as a result of their faults in carrying out their work. So if they install a new roof which later collapses, they are fully insured to cover the damage and repairs to the customer's house.
Without this insurance, the builder would either have to pay out of his own pocket, or where they couldn't afford to the customer would need to bring them to court to get their costs. Undesirable scenarios for all involved.

In the scenario presented in the OP, I suspect the liability boils down to who or what caused the fault. If there was nothing wrong with the equipment, but the contractor simply screwed up, then neither A or B can be held liable. Where the equipment was faulty, then it might matter who supplied the equipment, and the nature of the fault.
As a subcontractor, C would presumably be self-employed, so managing his personal safety would be his own business. However, it would depend on the circumstances.
Let's say a drill bit shears off and C isn't wearing goggles and loses an eye. Though it's not strictly his fault, the onus is on him to ensure that he's wearing glasses. (IMO)

But if he's climbing on scaffolding which collapses, then the fault lies with the person who constructed it (or the landowner ultimately afaik).

Zambia

So if I get this A still needs Public Liability Insurance if either A or C or anyone comes on their property?

seamus

"Need" is a loaded word.

No, you don't "need" public liability insurance. However it will cover you for any and all accidents on your property, where that's a home or a business.

There is no obligation on any homeowner or business to have public liability insurance.

Zambia

Agreed need is probably a strong term but it seems like if you own a property if anyone was to enter postman, water meter reader etc all could sue you for good knows how much?

Occupiers Liability Act would apply here surely? It would imply a duty of care in the hypothetical above subject to the reasonable supervision of the 3rd party (B)

coylemj

Deleted User wrote: »

Occupiers Liability Act would apply here surely? It would imply a duty of care in the hypothetical above subject to the reasonable supervision of the 3rd party (B)

Not necessarily, you employ a skilled worker who comes into your premises with his own equipment to do the job. If he slips on a wet floor or if he puts his ladder up against a partition that collapses then it's probably the landowner's fault but if he fcuks up and injures himself through his own carelessness or incompetence then it's his own fault and in law the landowner wouldn't be liable, provided he could show that he had provided a safe work environment.

coylemj

coylemj wrote: »

Not necessarily, you employ a skilled worker who comes into your premises with his own equipment to do the job. If he slips on a wet floor or if he puts his ladder up against a partition that collapses then it's probably the landowner's fault but if he fcuks up and injures himself through his own carelessness or incompetence then it's his own fault and in law the landowner wouldn't be liable, provided he could show that he had provided a safe work environment.

Well, yes. All I was saying was that there is a duty of care. All you're saying is that once you satisfy that duty then you're fine. I never said otherwise.

coylemj

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, yes. All I was saying was that there is a duty of care. All you're saying is that once you satisfy that duty then you're fine. I never said otherwise.

I guess I was taking issue with the qualifier 'subject to the reasonable supervision of the 3rd party (B)' in your earlier post as I don't see that the law requires you to supervise a skilled self-employed worker you engage to work on your premises. If it was a teenager doing odd jobs then maybe.

coylemj

coylemj wrote: »

I guess I was taking issue with the qualifier 'subject to the reasonable supervision of the 3rd party (B)' in your earlier post as I don't see that the law requires you to supervise a skilled self-employed worker you engage to work on your premises. If it was a teenager doing odd jobs then maybe.

It's actually there for kids in supermarkets etc but I just stuck it in for the sake of completeness.

pat9367

Hi,

Thanks everyone for the responses thus far. The situation is "more or less" as I thought.

Now, let's say A has no insurance. Of ANY sort.
The job entailed repairs to the roof of an outbuilding.
B assessed the job in his professional capacity and subcontracted C to do it.

Other facts as before.

but if he fcuks up and injures himself through his own carelessness or incompetence then it's his own fault and in law the landowner wouldn't be liable

OK...that sounds promising for A...

provided he could show that he had provided a safe work environment.

...this a little less so! Is there such a thing as saying the environment is "inherently" unsafe? A 'assumes' the situation may be unsafe, as it entails working at a height. He doesn't expressly state this at any point, relying on B's expertise. This, after all, is why he hired B in the first place.

Is there a requirement on A to provide a safe working environment in this situation?
If there is, then having hired B to do the job, does this responsibility pass to B or does A retain it?

Further info: there are no written contracts of any kind. Everything was agreed verbally.

NUTLEY BOY

My 10 cents worth.

VICARIOUS LIABILITY ?

A has a contractual relationship with B. If B is an independent contractor then, generally speaking, there is no vicarious liability on A for any potential negligence on the part of B.

OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY

Does A have a duty of care to C ? That depends very much on the full facts. Generally, I would expect that that if B and or C are independent contractors there should not be a duty of care owed as B and C can be reasonably expected to anticipate and guard against risks and hazards inherent in their particular work.

If there was some peculiarity or specific hidden danger on A's property about which he had knowledge (or about which he ought reasonably to have had knowledge) then there is probably a duty of care owed to warn of the hazard. Failure to warn B or C would probably constitute a breach of duty.

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY.

If the existence of a master-servant relationship between A and C can be established that is a wholly different matter. Although A may not think of himself as C's employer if certain criteria are satisfied the master-servant relationship may be deemed to exist.

The relevance of the preceding point is that if a master-servant relationship is established between A and C an additional and onerous set of duties will be deemed to exist. Masters owe servants a broad range of duties of care specific to that relationship and that makes it harder for an employer to avoid
liability.

INSURANCE.

Inscriptions on letter heads and on the sides of vans about being fully insured are, in technical legal terms, a load of total bollocks.

The contractors in question are only saying that their liabilities are insured under their policies to protect their potential liabilities.

A regular household insurance policy should give protection under three main headings arising from the OP's hypothetical question ;
1. Employers' liability.
2. Public liability cover as a property owner.
3. Public liability cover as a preoperty occupier.
4. Additionally, you may be covered for your personal liability if it does not come within 1 to 3 above.

An example of number 4 would be if C was up a ladder and you came around the corner and tripped over it and caused him to fall.

To answer querists original question I say that A may be liable for C's claim. However, the fact that C has merely had an accident does not create a presumption of liability. The mere fact that an accident occurs on your property does not mean that liability follows automatically.

This question is,of course,hypothetical. So, I hope that hypothetical A has notified his hypothetical insurance company about hypothetical C's hypothetical accident.:D

In short summary, the issue of liability turns very much on the particular facts of the case.

coylemj

pat9367 wrote: »

Is there such a thing as saying the environment is "inherently" unsafe? A 'assumes' the situation may be unsafe, as it entails working at a height. He doesn't expressly state this at any point, relying on B's expertise. This, after all, is why he hired B in the first place.

There are certain jobs that are inherently 'unsafe': reparing roofs and erecting aerials are two of them.

However there are people who are prepared to do these jobs and they are paid accordingly. Advertising themselves as 'roofing contractors' or 'aerial installers' implies that they are aware of the risk and are prepared to take them on.

So just because the work is dangerous doesn't necessarily mean that A is at fault if there is an accident.

pat9367 wrote: »

Is there a requirement on A to provide a safe working environment in this situation?
If there is, then having hired B to do the job, does this responsibility pass to B or does A retain it?

The requirement on A to 'provide a safe working environment' doesn't mean that all risks have to be eliminated. A 'safe' working environment is a relative term since there is always a risk when operating machinery or working at height. The law would say that any unnecessary risk that could have been anticipated and which puts the worker in peril would render the place of work unsafe.

You can't lower your roof to get it fixed so there are going to be risks but unless there is something that A knows, like the roof beams are rotten and he doesn't tell the roofer about it, as far as the law would be concerned he has provided as safe an environment as is possible to do in the circumstances.

pat9367

Thanks again folks for some learned and reasonable opinions, exactly what I came here for

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

If the existence of a master-servant relationship between A and C can be established that is a wholly different matter.

Is there a simple(ish) rule that would determine this, or is this a whole textbook unto itself? Going only on the bald "facts" already stated, would you say a master-servant relationship existed?

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Inscriptions on letter heads and on the sides of vans about being fully insured are, in technical legal terms, a load of total bollocks.

Quelle surprise!

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

This question is,of course,hypothetical. So, I hope that hypothetical A has notified his hypothetical insurance company about hypothetical C's hypothetical accident.:D.

A isn't even hypothetically insured!


coylemj:
The thrust of your last post seems to be that it would have to be proved that A was in some way negligent. This is my understanding of this whole area anyway, so I'm taking this as broad agreement. Sorry if I've missed something.

One final question (promise!)
Is there an onus on A to expressly ask B or C whether they have been adequately trained and/or to ask for written evidence of this?

Thanks

coylemj

pat9367 wrote: »

Is there an onus on A to expressly ask B or C whether they have been adequately trained and/or to ask for written evidence of this?

No there isn't, at least not in the area we're dealing with. The public are protected from rogue operators in the area of law (solicitors), medicine and dentistry where there is a legal requirement to be enrolled on the appropriate register so that the state can enforce minimum standards of training and certification.

For general work about the house, the only area regulated by the state is in the area of gas fitters where there is a requirement to be certified as a registered gas installer (RGI).

If I turn up on your doorstep with 'Joe Bloggs, Roofer' painted on my van and propose to climb up a ladder to fix your roof, there is no onus on you to ask to see if I have adequate training for the simple reason that there is no set standard in that occupation. Put simply, anyone can call himself a roofer and there is no way to prove that he isn't.

There are trade organisations which supposedly enforce standards but like a used car dealer calling himself a member of SIMI, membership doesn't imply that the individual has done any particular training or passed any test to call himself a member of that trade or profession.

pat9367

Thanks, I appreciate all the responses.

NUTLEY BOY

pat9367 wrote: »

Thanks again folks for some learned and reasonable opinions, exactly what I came here for

Is there a simple(ish) rule that would determine this, or is this a whole textbook unto itself? Going only on the bald "facts" already stated, would you say a master-servant relationship existed? Thanks

Employers' liability has entire textbooks devoted to it !

There are a number of tests that can be applied to determine if a master-servant relationship exists.

The simplest and most basic test is that of control. Specifically, if you retain the right to direct to direct a worker as to how he shall complete his work that is the essence of control.

Presence of the right of control is not definitive proof of the master-servant relationship.

The right of control should not be confused with the right to direct to a workman the end goal of his work.