Darren Hoadley v Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy Ltd & Anor.

An employer breaches its duty where its system of work fails adequately to control a known risk from moving machinery. Causation is established where that failure directly contributes to the accident, even though the employee’s own carelessness also contributes. Employees’ failures do not automatically break the chain of causation or make them entirely responsible for their injury.

Contributory negligence is assessed by weighing the parties’ blameworthiness and the causative potency of their respective failures. In doing so, the court must recognise the employer’s responsibility to devise, implement and police a safe system of work, including anticipating that employees may sometimes be careless or inattentive.

The claimant, an offshore wind turbine technician employed by the first defendant, suffered traumatic amputation of his left arm while checking a guide-pin lock inside a wind turbine nacelle aboard the SEA INSTALLER. The machinery remained energised and a rotating brake disc trapped his arm.

The defendants were the claimant’s UK employer and its Belgian subsidiary, which controlled the relevant offshore windfarm project. English law governed liability. The Athens Convention defence was abandoned at trial, and the court determined primary liability and, if relevant, contributory negligence as preliminary issues.

The central issues were whether the defendants’ safety arrangements constituted a breach of duty, whether the breaches caused the accident, and the extent to which the claimant’s own failures reduced his recovery.

1. Liability. The defendants were in breach of duty. The morning technicians removed the rotor locks and reactivated the power without reinstating the chain and warning sign intended to alert incoming staff that the system was energised. The open nacelle door also contributed to the misleading impression that the power was isolated and obscured the control panel.
2. Defective system of work. The system was inadequate in several respects, including reliance on a chain rather than a more robust key-operated barrier, the absence of an energy isolation procedure, and the lack of a properly risk-assessed method for checking the guide-pin locks. A barrier consistent with the hierarchy of control measures in the European Directives was the primary measure needed to address the risk.
3. Causation. The breaches led directly to the accident. The failure to replace the chain and warning sign was a very proximate cause and the most potent failure identified. The claimant’s failings did not break the chain of causation and were not so egregious as to make him entirely responsible.
4. Contributory negligence. The claimant failed to involve the installation lead, plan the task, work with another person, and verify that the machinery was isolated and locked off. His possession of a radio did not cure the risk of working alone. His contributory negligence was assessed by weighing blameworthiness and causative potency, while recognising the employer’s duty to anticipate employee carelessness or inattention.
5. The claimant was found one third to blame. The defendants’ failures, particularly the failure to reinstate the chain and warning sign, were more causatively potent.