Jagger v Holland & Ors

An event organiser retaining overall control of a public site owes responsibility for managing the interaction between vehicles and members of the public, including during preparations. That responsibility is not transferred merely because another contractor controls a defined event area. A contractor’s occasional assistance with vehicle movements outside that area does not, without more, establish an assumption of responsibility or a duty of care in tort. A driver moving a large vehicle must ensure that the manoeuvre is safe, using effective banksmen where necessary. For contribution purposes, responsibility is assessed by what is just and equitable having regard to each party’s responsibility for the damage.

The claimant suffered devastating injuries when she was struck by an articulated lorry on Cambridge Common while the site was being prepared for a bonfire, fireworks display and fairground event. The lorry driver admitted liability shortly before trial. The event organiser also admitted liability. The fairground contractor denied liability, arguing that its responsibility began only once vehicles entered the fairground site.

Contributory negligence was agreed at 12.5%. The court therefore determined whether the fairground contractor owed the claimant a duty of care, whether it was liable to the organiser under the contractual arrangements, and how responsibility should be apportioned between the liable defendants.

1. Liability of the organiser. The event was one event for which the organiser retained overall responsibility, subject only to responsibilities delegated to the fairground contractor within the confines of the fairground site. The organiser retained control, possession and management of the Common. It was therefore responsible for overall site management, risk assessment, traffic management and the segregation of vehicles from pedestrians and cyclists.
2. The event documentation failed adequately to address the setting-up phase of the fairground or the obvious risk of vehicles colliding with members of the public. Reasonable precautions included restricting access, using barriers or stewards, providing suitable signage and ensuring effective control of vehicle movements. The organiser’s negligence was therefore causatively relevant.
3. Liability of the fairground contractor. The contractor’s contractual responsibility extended to fairground vehicles within the fairground site. Although its employees occasionally assisted vehicles before they entered that site, this did not amount to an assumption of responsibility for the safety of vehicles travelling across the Common. The contractor therefore owed no relevant duty of care to the claimant and was not liable in negligence.
4. The contractor’s contractual obligations to provide planning documentation and comply with health and safety requirements did not create a causatively relevant breach once the court had found that it owed no relevant duty in respect of the accident. The organiser’s contractual indemnity claim also failed because the accident was directly caused by the organiser’s negligence.
5. Apportionment. The driver was the primary cause of the accident. He should not have moved the lorry without ensuring that the nearside was clear or that effective banksmen were in position. Applying section 2(1) of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, responsibility was apportioned 65% to the driver and 35% to the organiser. After the agreed 12.5% deduction for contributory negligence, judgment was entered for the claimant against those two defendants for 87.5% of the recoverable damages. The claim against the fairground contractor failed.