Ryan Jones v Persimmon Homes Limited & Anor

Liability for an accident involving access scaffolding depends on proof of both breach and causation. The use of standard ladder clips, and their orientation with the unused portion facing inwards or outwards, was not negligent where there was no established guidance or good practice requiring one orientation. A missing baseboard may nevertheless constitute a breach where it formed part of the scaffold as designed and handed over, and reasonable inspection should have identified and remedied its absence. Causation must be established on the balance of probabilities. Contributory negligence may arise where the claimant knowingly uses an unstable ladder or fails to avoid an obvious obstruction.

The claimant, an experienced carpenter, was injured after falling nearly 5 metres while descending a scaffold ladder on a housing construction site. He alleged that an outward-facing ladder clip obstructed his hand, that the ladder was unstable because its baseboard was absent, and that the ladder was too steeply pitched. The first defendant was the principal contractor and the second defendant the scaffolding contractor.

The court determined liability only. It found that the claimant’s hand caught on the clip, that movement of the ladder caused his other hand to be pinched, and that he consequently lost three points of contact. The central issues were whether the clip orientation was negligent, whether the missing baseboard caused the fall, and whether either defendant was liable.

1. Accident mechanism. On the balance of probabilities, the claimant’s hand caught on the outward-facing clip. He transferred his weight, the ladder moved, his other hand was pinched, and he let go, losing three points of contact and falling.
2. Clip orientation. The standard double-sided clips were suitable for securing the ladder. There was no guidance or established good practice requiring the unused portion to face inwards. Either orientation created an obstruction, depending on how the ladder was held. The post-accident decision to re-orientate and then replace the clips was a reaction to the incident and did not establish negligence. No liability therefore attached to either defendant for the clips.
3. Baseboard and causation. The baseboard had been installed by Macob and formed part of the scaffold as handed over. It was absent by the morning of the accident. The evidence showed that the ladder was not firmly footed and that, had the baseboard remained in place, the movement sufficient to cause the claimant to release his grip would probably not have occurred. The Work at Height Regulations 2005 and the contractual and inspection context were relevant to the standard of reasonable care.
4. Persimmon’s inspection duty. The purpose of inspection was not merely to ensure that the ladder appeared sufficiently sturdy for use. It also included ensuring that the scaffold remained as erected and certified. Persimmon’s failure to observe and remedy the missing baseboard was a failure to exercise reasonable care and skill. This conclusion applied whether the baseboard was already missing at the inspection two days earlier or was displaced before the claimant was instructed to use the scaffold.
5. Pitch and contributory negligence. The ladder’s pitch did not cause the fall. The claimant knew that the ladder should rest on a firm level base and should have reported or remedied the missing baseboard. His failure to do so contributed to the accident. His total contributory negligence was assessed at 50%, taking account also of his failure to avoid the obvious clip.
6. Disposition. No liability attached to Macob. Persimmon was liable in respect of the fall, subject to the claimant’s 50% contributory negligence.