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

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

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.

View

Legal updates

Coronavirus (COVID-19) insurance considerations

With instances of COVID-19 rapidly increasing throughout the UK, many businesses are considering the options available to limit staff and customer exposure to Coronavirus.

View

Legal updates

Insurance annual review 2019-2020

Welcome to our review of 2019 as we look ahead to what is on the horizon for the insurance sector in 2020.

View

Legal updates

Financial Services – ‘Duty of Care’ Bill: consumer protection or damp squib?

The Financial Services Duty of Care Bill (the “Bill”) was introduced into the House of Lords in October 2019 and had its second reading on 9 January 2020.

View

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