0370 270 6000

Barr v Coventry and Solihull Waste Disposal Co Ltd & Another

21 May 2002
The issues

Employment – control. Employee working on another’s premises – apportionment.

The facts

The First Defendant employed the Claimant. The Claimant worked on the Second Defendant’s premises. He suffered an injury on the Second Defendant’s premises, when a barrow that he was pushing went over a manhole cover which collapsed. Metal from the barrow crushed the Claimant’s foot. Liability to the Claimant was concluded. The remaining issue was the question of apportionment of liability between employer and Second Defendant. The Judge at first instance, apportioned liability equally between employer and Second Defendant, finding as against the employer, that it had failed to carry out any assessment of the work carried out by the Claimant or as to the premises on which the work was to be done. Such an assessment would have brought the load bearing capacity of the manhole cover to employers attention.

The First Defendant appealed.

The decision

1. The Claimant was very experienced. The manhole cover was dangerous, but it was a danger unknown to any party.

2. Unless First Defendants had inspected the premises and carefully examined the cover, it would not have discovered the danger. It was entitled to assume that the route was safe, having regard to the fact that in particular, the Claimant had used the route before. Moreover, had Second Defendants been asked, they would have said that the route was safe.

3. It was impossible to conclude that First Defendant should have known of the danger and that First Defendant was in breach of its common law duty of care.

Appeal allowed.

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