A C Billings & Sons Ltd v Riden

A contractor carrying out work on premises owes the ordinary duty of reasonable care to people whom the contractor should expect lawfully to visit or be affected by the work. The visitor’s rights against the contractor are not restricted by the more limited duty which an occupier may owe to a licensee.

A warning or the visitor’s knowledge of the danger does not invariably discharge that duty. The question is whether, in all the circumstances, encountering the known danger lacked common or ordinary prudence. If the visitor acts reasonably, knowledge does not exclude liability. If both parties’ negligence causes the injury, the visitor’s fault reduces damages rather than barring the claim.

The respondent was injured while leaving premises occupied as a government office. The appellant contractors had removed the normal access ramp, left no practicable safe route at the front of the premises and advised the caretaker to use a route passing close to an unfenced basement area on neighbouring land. The caretaker passed that advice to the respondent.

Hallett J treated the respondent’s rights against the contractors as analogous to those of a licensee against an occupier. A majority of the Court of Appeal held that the contractors owed an ordinary duty of care and that the contractors and respondent were equally responsible for the accident.

The contractors appealed. The central issues were the nature of their duty, whether knowledge or warning of the danger would exclude liability, whether the danger’s location on adjoining land affected responsibility, and whether the respondent’s conduct was the sole cause of her injury.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid, Lord Cohen, Lord Keith of Avonholm and Lord Somervell of Harrow agreed that the contractors were liable. The House upheld the Court of Appeal majority’s conclusion that the contractors and respondent were equally to blame.

2. Per Lord Reid, the contractors owed all persons who might reasonably be expected lawfully to visit the house the ordinary duty to take such care as was reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that their operations did not expose visitors to danger. Their liability was not measured by the limited duty which an occupier owed to a licensee. Lord Cohen and Lord Somervell adopted the same general duty. Lord Keith agreed that contractors must protect occupants and members of the public against harm resulting from their operations.

3. Per Lord Reid, a warning has no automatic exculpatory effect. Where the claimant knows of the danger, the question is whether encountering it showed a want of common or ordinary prudence. Knowledge does not relieve the defendant where a reasonable person could still incur the risk. Lord Cohen agreed that a warning may be insufficient and that reasonable care may, depending on the circumstances, require an alternative route or physical protection. Lord Somervell likewise held that reasonableness determines the precautions required.

4. Per Lord Reid, a person executing works which interfere with an existing safe access must take reasonable steps to mitigate the consequences. The contractors could reasonably have provided a protected plank walk. At the least, they should have warned against the route instead of advising its use. Their inability to alter the neighbouring land did not answer the claim because their operations made use of the dangerous route necessary.

5. Lord Keith reached the same result on the narrower factual basis that the respondent’s fall began on No. 25, from a dangerous condition created there by the contractors. He would not have imposed liability for an accident beginning and ending solely on neighbouring property where the danger was neither created nor controlled by the contractors.

6. Per Lord Reid and Lord Somervell, the respondent’s conduct had to be assessed by practical standards of reasonableness. A reasonable person is not a paragon of circumspection. The respondent acted reasonably in accepting the invitation and using the indicated route, although she failed to take sufficient care when leaving. Per Lord Cohen and Lord Somervell, under the Contributory Negligence Act 1945, that fault reduced damages because it was contributory rather than the sole cause of the accident.

1. House of Lords: Dismissed the contractors’ appeal with costs and upheld the equal apportionment of responsibility adopted by the majority of the Court of Appeal.

2. Court of Appeal: The majority held that the contractors owed an ordinary duty of reasonable care and that the contractors and respondent were equally to blame. The citation is not stated in the judgment.

3. High Court: Hallett J accepted the evidence that the contractors’ workmen had advised use of the route. He approached the respondent’s rights against the contractors as those of a licensee and found that she had contributed substantially to the accident. The precise order is not stated in the judgment.