Occupiers’ liability — Independent contractor — Injury to agent of contractor — Whether appellant failing to take reasonable care in selecting reasonably competent contractor — Whether duty owed to agent of contractor — Appeal dismissed
The appellant cricket club engaged a two-man stunt team to carry out a pyrotechnic display on the premises. The stunt team invited the respondent to assist them. The respondent was injured when a mortar tube, which he was filling with gunpowder as part of the display, exploded in his face.
The respondent brought a claim for damages against the club and the members of the stunt team. The judge found as matters of fact that, inter alia: (i) the respondent had no training or experience in the use of pyrotechnics; (ii) the display was potentially very dangerous; (iii) the safety equipment provided to the respondent was inadequate; and (iv) despite the appearance that they may have given to the club, the stunt team was an amateurish organisation operating in a field that required the highest degree of professionalism if danger was to be avoided. The judge concluded that the club was liable for its failure to exercise reasonable care in the choice of a reasonably competent independent contractor.
The club appealed. It contended, inter alia, that, on the evidence, the judge should not have found that the club had failed to take reasonable care in selecting a suitable contractor. It also argued that an occupier of land owed no relevant duty of care to the agent of an independent contractor who entered onto the land for his principal’s purposes.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
On the facts of the case, the club ought to have taken reasonable care in its selection of a suitable contractor to conduct the dangerous pyrotechnics display, and it had failed to do so. In cases like the present, occupiers would usually escape liability if they could show that they had taken reasonable care to elect competent and safe contractors, and, in such cases, an injured employee or agent could look no further than his own employer or principal for redress. However, there could be circumstances in which the occupier, who wished something dangerous to be done on his land for his benefit, would also be liable, and this was one of those cases: Ferguson v Welsh [1987] 1 WLR 1553 applied.
Philip Havers QC and Peter Cowan (instructed by Berrymans Lace Mawer, of Liverpool) appeared for the appellant; Michael Shorrock QC and Richard Pearce (instructed by The Thrasher Walker Partnership, of Stockport) appeared for the respondent; the second and third defendants in the original action were not parties to this appeal.
Sally Dobson, barrister
