The Crane, the Scaffolder and the Sub-Contractor's Clause
Liffey Vale Developments employs Cian as a tower crane operator on a Dublin apartment site. Kestrel Scaffolding, an independent contractor, has erected the scaffold, and its employee Aoife is working at third-floor level. The written contract between Liffey Vale and Kestrel states that Kestrel is 'solely responsible for all site safety in the scaffold zone'. At 11.40 a.m. Cian, hurrying to complete a pour before a forecast storm, slews the jib without checking his blind spot; the load strikes the scaffold and Aoife falls four metres. She was not wearing the hard hat issued to her, which she had left in Kestrel's van. She sustains a fractured skull and, eight months later, is diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. The site safety officer had previously noted in the site diary that Cian routinely operated without a banksman but had taken no action. Kestrel's insurer argues that Liffey Vale owes nothing to Aoife because she is not its employee and because Kestrel had contractually assumed responsibility for safety in the scaffold zone.
1. Is Liffey Vale vicariously liable for Cian's negligence, and does the contractual allocation of safety responsibility to Kestrel defeat Aoife's claim against Liffey Vale?
Read the worked answer
Framework. Vicarious liability requires a tort committed by a wrongdoer, an employer/employee relationship, and the tort committed in the course of employment. Cian is Liffey Vale's employee. Slewing the jib without a banksman is an unauthorised mode of performing an authorised act, not a frolic of his own, so the employer is liable for it. The safety officer's recorded inaction is independently negligent conduct by the company itself and strengthens the claim.
Duty to Aoife. Aoife's status as Kestrel's employee does not insulate Liffey Vale. A party which controls crane operations on a site owes a duty of care to every person foreseeably affected by those operations, including employees of independent contractors working in the danger area. Liffey Vale is also the party conducting the lifting operation, and that duty is non-delegable.
The contract. The clause is res inter alios acta: Aoife is not a party to it, and a contract between two companies cannot cut down a duty owed to a third party. Its only legal effect is between Liffey Vale and Kestrel - it may ground an indemnity or a claim for contribution under the Civil Liability Act 1961.
Conclusion. Liffey Vale is vicariously liable for Cian and independently liable towards Aoife. Kestrel may also be liable for failing to enforce hard-hat use. They are concurrent wrongdoers, and Aoife may sue either or both.
2. How should the court approach Aoife's failure to wear the hard hat, and to which parts of her loss should any reduction apply?
Read the worked answer
Test. Contributory negligence under section 34 of the Civil Liability Act 1961 has two limbs: a failure by the claimant to take reasonable care for her own safety, and a causal link between that failure and the damage. The court then apportions damages on a 'just and equitable' basis.
Fault. Leaving an issued hard hat in the van and working at height without it is a clear failure to take care for her own safety.
Causation - the limb candidates most often miss. The reduction applies only to the damage which the carelessness helped to cause. On the medical evidence, a hard hat might have converted a fractured skull into a lesser head injury, so a reduction of the head-injury award (typically 20-30% on such facts) is realistic. The hard hat did nothing to prevent the fall, and it did nothing to prevent the post-traumatic stress disorder, which flowed from the accident itself. The PTSD element should not be reduced.
Counterpoints. If the fall was so sudden, or the load came from a direction where head protection made no difference, there is no causal link and no reduction at all. If Kestrel's site practice was simply never to enforce hard-hat use, that goes to the defendants' fault and may dilute Aoife's share.
Conclusion. Expect a modest reduction confined to the head injury, with the psychiatric element untouched.
3. Can Aoife recover for post-traumatic stress disorder, and what must she establish?
Read the worked answer
Primary or secondary victim. Aoife was within the zone of physical danger - the load struck the very scaffold on which she stood - so she is a primary victim. The Alcock control mechanisms (close tie of love and affection, proximity in time and place, sudden shock) apply only to secondary victims and have no application to her.
Foreseeability. For a primary victim, once some personal injury is foreseeable the defendant takes the victim as it finds her; the psychiatric illness does not have to be separately foreseeable. The defendant cannot argue that a psychiatric rather than physical outcome was unforeseeable.
Proof. She must prove a recognised psychiatric illness, diagnosed by a suitably qualified expert. PTSD qualifies; grief, distress or ordinary anxiety does not.
Causation. The eight-month gap between the fall and the diagnosis invites the defendants to attribute the condition to other stressors - pain, lost earnings, litigation. The medical evidence must exclude or discount those causes, and any pre-existing vulnerability is taken as found under the thin-skull rule rather than reducing recovery.
Conclusion. The PTSD claim is recoverable in principle; the risk to it is evidential, not doctrinal.