The Collapsed Mezzanine and the Borrowed Ladder
Priya manages a small warehouse. She hires Delta Contractors to replace roof panels. Delta's site lead, Owen, brings his own ladders but asks Priya to lend him a taller one because his is too short for the north bay. Priya's maintenance ladder is stored in the yard, has a visible crack in one rung, and carries a faded tag reading 'inspect before use'. Priya tells Owen the ladder 'might be a bit dodgy' but lends it anyway. Owen does not inspect it, climbs to 4.2 metres, and the cracked rung snaps. He falls onto a mezzanine walkway that Delta itself installed two years earlier with an inadequate guardrail (0.75 metres instead of the required 1.1 metres). Owen suffers a fractured pelvis. Separately, a Delta apprentice, Mia, was working beneath the walkway and is struck by a falling panel dislodged when Owen grabbed at the roof edge. Priya's insurance asks you to apportion responsibility.
1. Analyse Priya's potential liability to Owen under occupiers' liability and employers' liability principles. Which statutory regime applies, and what standard of care governs?
Read the worked answer
Owen is not Priya's employee, so employers' liability does not apply to him; Delta owes him that duty. Priya's exposure arises as an occupier of the premises. Because Owen is a contractor lawfully on the premises for business purposes, the occupier's statutory duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (or the equivalent local occupiers' liability legislation) applies to him as a visitor, with the common duty of care to take reasonable care that he will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited.
The standard is reasonableness, not guarantee. Relevant factors: the ladder was visibly defective, tagged for inspection, and Priya herself flagged it as 'dodgy'. Lending equipment known to be suspect to a contractor working at height is a strong breach indicator. The 1957 Act also addresses warnings: a warning does not automatically discharge the duty unless in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe. A vague oral caution ('might be a bit dodgy') to a professional who then failed to inspect is unlikely, on its own, to be sufficient.
However, the Act expects an occupier to appreciate that a competent contractor will guard against risks ordinarily incident to his trade. Owen's failure to inspect a ladder he was told was suspect is a serious lapse. The likely outcome is shared responsibility: Priya in breach for supplying defective equipment, but with a substantial reduction for Owen's contributory negligence and Delta's vicarious responsibility for its site lead's failure to inspect.
2. Owen's fall is worsened by the inadequate guardrail Delta installed. How should causation and apportionment be analysed as between Priya and Delta?
Read the worked answer
Two causal chains must be separated. First, the cracked rung caused the fall. Priya supplied the ladder; but for the defective rung, Owen would not have fallen at that moment. Second, the fall's severity was increased because the mezzanine guardrail was below the required 1.1 metres. Delta installed that guardrail two years earlier, so Delta's own breach of its installation obligations contributed to the injury's extent.
The 'but for' test establishes factual causation for each contributor. Legal causation then asks whether each party's breach was a material cause. On a cumulative-cause analysis, both the defective ladder and the deficient guardrail materially contributed to the pelvis fracture, so both Priya and Delta can be held liable, with contribution apportioned according to responsibility.
Apportionment factors: Priya knew the ladder was suspect and lent it anyway; Owen failed to inspect despite the tag and warning; Delta had installed a non-compliant guardrail and sent a site lead who did not inspect borrowed equipment. A court would likely allocate a significant share to Delta for the guardrail and its site lead's conduct, a share to Priya for the ladder, and reduce Owen's recovery for contributory negligence. Note that an occupier is not generally liable for the negligent work of an independent contractor where the occupier reasonably entrusted the work to a competent contractor, which further limits Priya's share of the guardrail element.
3. Mia, the apprentice, is injured by a falling panel. Does Priya owe her a duty, and how does her position differ from Owen's?
Read the worked answer
Mia is also a visitor on Priya's premises, so the common duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 extends to her. But the mechanism of her injury matters. The panel was dislodged when Owen grabbed at the roof edge during his fall. That is an act of a third party (Owen/Delta) rather than a defect in the premises.
Priya's duty as occupier requires her to take reasonable steps to protect visitors from foreseeable risks, including risks arising from contractors' activities. If Priya knew or ought to have known that work was being carried out above an occupied area without exclusion zones or netting, she may be in breach for failing to coordinate safe working. That is a question of what a reasonable occupier would have done, not strict liability.
Mia's claim against Delta is stronger: Delta is her employer, owes a non-delegable duty to provide a safe system of work, and its site lead's conduct is vicariously attributable. Priya's liability to Mia is likely secondary and fact-dependent: if she provided the workspace and knew of the overhead hazard, a modest apportionment against her is plausible; if Delta controlled the method and sequencing of work, primary responsibility rests with Delta. Mia's youth and inexperience may also reduce any contributory negligence argument against her.