0370 270 6000

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

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