0370 270 6000

Anderson v Newham College of Further Education

2 April 2002
The issues

Trips – contributory negligence.

The facts

The Claimant was a Mobile Site Supervisor who visited the College in February 1997. When he was in a classroom he tripped over the frame of a white board, which was free-standing and resting against a wall. Had the board been put the other way round and had the Claimant still walked into it, he would have hurt himself at shin height rather than have tripped. The Judge found the College in breach of Regulation 12 of the Work Place (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 in that it had failed to keep the floor of articles likely to cause a trip. However, the Claimant was greatly to blame for not looking where he was going. That share of blame would be quantified at 90% contributory negligence. The Claimant and Defendant appealed.

The decision

1. There was an undoubted breach.

2. Although the Claimant sought to rely on Jayes -v- IMI (Kynoch) Limited a decision of the Court of Appeal in 1985 to the effect that a Claimant could be 100% contributorily negligent even where an employer was in breach of its statutory duty, that case could not survive the earlier House of Lords decision of Boyle -v- Kodak Limited (1969) to the effect that an employer could not exonerate itself from liability for breach of statutory duty unless the breach itself was wholly brought about by the Claimant. In any other situation, the breach itself brought liability to some extent on the employer.

3. The Court of Appeal, in Jays, were not referred to the earlier decision of the House of Lords in Boyle. Jayes therefore will continue to be “a decision which probably is confined to its own facts” (Monkman). Jayes should not be followed by first instance Judges.

4. It would have been reasonably practicable to have turned the white board around. A cross appeal would be allowed to the extent that blame would be apportioned 50/50.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


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.


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