0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Parker v PFC Flooring Supplies Ltd, Court of Appeal

16 October 2001
The issues

Employer’s duty of care – Roof – Contributory Negligence.

The facts

The Claimant went onto a roof at a Factory. The Factory was a Family Run Company, which employed the Claimant, his Father, his Mother and four other employees. The Claimants Father was the Managing Director who ran the Company and controlled it. The Claimant was his Father’s Second in Command and had been due to take over the Company. The Factory had a conventional sloping twin skimmed asbestos roof 12.1/2 feet above the ground. The Claimant went onto the roof to deal with a problem. He slipped and fell through a skylight suffering serious injuries. The Judge at first instance found for the Claimant on the basis that the Defendant Company had been in breach of its common law duty of care and moreover in breach of Regulation 13(4) Workplace (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. The Defendant Company appealed.

The decision

1. It was reasonable foreseeable that someone might try and get onto the roof.

2. It would have been reasonable for the Defendant Company to warn employees that no one should go onto the roof.

3. It was clear that if the Claimants Father had been there, the Claimant would not have gone onto the roof.

4. The Court of Appeal would uphold the Judge’s findings as to negligence.

5. The Judge had apportioned contributory negligence at 50%. Whilst the Court of Appeal was reluctant to find that the Claimant was the Author of his own misfortune, it would not interfere with an issue of contributory negligence unless the Judge was clearly in error. The apportionment in the circumstances was reasonable.

Appeal Dismissed.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up