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?

Butcher v Cornwall County Council, Court of Appeal

30 October 2011
The issues

Contributory negligence – blame/blameworthiness – causation – door hitting Claimant.

The facts

The Claimant worked for the Cornwall Fire Brigade as a Storeman. At the premises at which he worked there was an external door, which opened outward to a 90 degree angle. There had previously been a hook and eye device which allowed the door to be secured in the open position. At the time of the accident, this was not there. The Claimant was working outside the door when it was suddenly blown open by wind and hit him on the head. He had previously been walking back and forth through the doorway and thought he had properly secured it closed on its latching mechanism. He acknowledged in evidence that he had not in fact closed it properly. The Defendant argued that it was the Claimant’s failure to shut the door properly that caused the accident, and that they had supplied a safe method of securing the door in its closed position and there was no duty to provide an alternative method – i.e. of securing it open.

The decision

1. The Defendant was in breach of its duty for failing to provide a sufficient mechanism, whether a hook and eye device or some other to hold the door open. The Judge had found that had there been something in place, the Claimant would have used it.

2. Had the Claimant shut the door properly, the accident could have been averted. The Judge’s finding of 10% contributory negligence was too little. A substantial measure of blame had to fall upon the Claimant and the more appropriate percentage would have been one half. However, the Judge found that the Claimant was less blameworthy and accordingly, the Judge’s Order would be adjusted to a finding of one-third contributory negligence.

Appeal allowed in part.


For further information with regard to this case please contact markhammerton@vpinsurance.net

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