0370 270 6000

Toole v Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council, Court of Appeal, 18 April 2002

23 April 2002
The issues

Employers liability – statutory duty – breach – contributory negligence.

The facts

The Claimant was a cleaner who worked in the Civic Centre which also included the Courts. Hypodermic syringes were regularly left in the toilets. The Defendant had a policy with respect to these. Employers were to contact their Supervisors. Guidance notes were issued, establishing a practice to be followed – namely the employee to get heavy duty gloves, a litter picker and a container for the syringe. The Claimant found a syringe in a bucket. He wore rubber gloves instead of the gloves provided. He thought there was only one syringe, but when he reached in he found there was a second one which pricked him. He sued. The Judge at first instance found that the gloves provided by the Defendant would not have been strong enough to stop a pin prick. He found the Defendant in breach of its statutory duties in failing to supply adequate equipment. However, the Claimant was contributorily negligent for putting his hand in the bucket with a rubber glove on, to the extent of 75%. The Claimant appealed.

The decision

1. Findings of contributory negligence and breach of statutory duty cases were unusual. (See recently Anderson -v- Newham College of Further Education) also a decision of the Court of Appeal).

2. A Judge should necessarily consider whether the findings of breach of statutory duty were causative of the injury.

3. In this case, the Judge had already found the Defendant liable for failing to provide adequate equipment.

4. The Judge had found that the gloves which the Defendant provided would not have prevented the injury.

5. An employee could not be contributorily negligent in failing to take a precaution which itself amounted to a breach of duty. Even if he had worn the gloves, it was by no means certain that he would have avoided the injury.

6. Claimant’s Appeal allowed and finding of contributory negligence set aside.

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