0370 270 6000

Horton v Taplin Contracts Ltd, Court of Appeal, 8 November 2002

14 November 2002
The issues

Assault – equipment – scaffolding – intervening act – Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations.

The facts

The Claimant was a Carpenter employed by the Defendant. He was using a scaffolding tower. It had guard rails on some but not all sides and there were no stabilisers or outriggers. He had a row with a colleague who toppled the tower over deliberately, causing the Claimant serious injuries. The Claimant alleged that the Defendant had been negligent in breaching Regulation 5 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992, Regulation 20 of the 1992 Regulations, and Regulation 5 of the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996.

The Claimant’s claim was dismissed and the Claimant Appealed.

The decision

1. The working of the Regulations when taken together were such that suitability of purpose was to be seen by reference to hazards to health and safety that were reasonably foreseeable.

2. The co-worker’s behaviour was not reasonably foreseeable. There had been therefore no breach of Regulation 5 of the 1992 Regulations.

3. The obligation under Regulation 20 arose when stability was necessary for the purposes of health and safety. Again, the mischief to be guarded against had reasonably to be foreseen. The Recorder had been right in finding that it was not foreseeable that the equipment would be used in the way it had been by the Claimant’s colleague. There was therefore no breach of Regulation 5 of the 1996 Regulations.

4. Even if there had been a breach, it could not be said that the breach was causative of the accident. The Claimant had not established that stabilisers or outriggers would have stopped the tower from falling over.

5. Moreover, even if there had been breaches and the breaches had been seen as causative, the behaviour of the colleague amounted to a new intervening act, which was sufficient to break the chain of causation.

Appeal dismissed.

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