“For the supply ex-works of a building: 5.3 m x 20.15 m x 6.7 m Portal (15° roof pitch). All generally as drawings UP 377, 03715-02, 03 and 04 Our price is£31,910.00 + VAT Steelwork: As engineers drawings using Metsec cold rolled framing and floor beams. Painted one coat of high build primer. Including galvanised grating… Exclusions: Fire protection…Handrailing, stairs, windows and doors…”
“LL [Live Loads] = 5.0 Kn/m² Floors say BSGs [British Standard Gratings] 30 x 3 bars @41 mm c/c [centres] DL [Dead Load] = 0.21 Kn/m² Total Load including Steels = 5.5 Kn/m²”
“(a) Failing to secure all the grating to the steel framework structure adequately; inadequate numbers of clips were used, positioned such that they were liable to loosen, and so positioned as to provide no or inadequate resistance to the grating displacing laterally such as to cause the Claimant’s accident; (b) Failing to warn the Defendant of the inadequacy of the location and fixing of the platform gratings; (c) Failing to ensure that the installation and fixing of the grating complied with BS 4592:1995. (d) Failing in the circumstances to exercise reasonable skill and care.”
“1 Scope This part of BS 4592 specifies requirements for aluminium and steel…open bar gratings intended for use in flooring, walkways and stair treads… NOTE 2 Annex B gives recommendations for the installation of gratings. 4. Information to be supplied The following information to be supplied by the purchaser shall be fully documented. Both the definitive requirements specified throughout the standard and the following documented items shall be satisfied before a claim of compliance with the standard can be made and verified: a) where appropriate, scale plans of the area to be covered… b) type of grating…and the depth required if known… e) loading for which the flooring, walkway or stair treads are to be designed (see Table 3). For wheel loading, the tread area, maximum wheel load and direction of travel will need to be stated. For other concentrated loads (see Table 3) the concentrated load area will need to be stated… j) method of fixing (clips or welding, see Annex B)… 9 Performance Table 3-Loads Use of grating UDL kN/m² Concentrated load (at 1.0 m centres over squares of 300 mm side) kN Light duty Access limited to one person 3.0 1.0 General duty Regular two-way pedestrian traffic is 5.0 1.0 Heavy duty High density pedestrian traffic 7.5 1.0 NOTE 1 Gratings to take vehicle loads travelling at 90°…shall either have pressed bars, or transverse bars… NOTE 2 For vehicular traffic, unfactored wheel loads may have the permissible stress increased by 10%... ANNEX B (informative) Recommendations for the installation of gratings B.1 General Gratings should be fixed or contained in such a manner that they will not move laterally or away from their supporting members. The minimum extension of grating over supports should be 25 mm. Where it is possible for gratings to move in the direction of span away from their supporting structure, the design of either the gratings or the structure should include a suitable method of minimising movement. For instance, gratings may be designed to include either small pieces of flat bar or angle section fixed to them in such a manner as to restrict their movement by having them protrude below the bottom surface of the gratings at a distance of not more than 10 mm away from the edges of their supporting structure. Alternatively, the supporting structure may be designed to include small pieces of flat bar attached to its top surface in such a manner and position as to prevent the gratings moving significantly in any direction when not fixed down… B.2 Fixing clips All gratings should be fixed securely to the supporting structure using not less than two clips for each grating where panels are connected together, or four clips for each grating where panels are not connected together. Fixing clips should be used for all continuous band gratings and for shaped gratings where any side or edge of the grating may be subject to uplift as a result of a non-uniform imposed load. Wherever practicable, the clips should be designed so that they may be fixed or removed by persons working from the surface of the grating secured by those clips. The projection for the clip above the grating surface should be not greater than the thickness of the clip or 4 mm, whichever is the lesser. The minimum thickness of the clip should normally be 3 mm… Fixing bolts should be supplied with either a lock nut or a cap washer to retain the nut, or have the fixing clips designed to retain the nut. In areas where grating deflections are at their extremes or where grating is known to be subject to high levels of vibration, more positive methods of fixing should be used, such as direct fixing of grating to supports by either welding to or bolting through their supports. Other methods of positive fixings recommended in lieu of friction grip fixing clips are drilling and tapping of supporting steelwork, welding studs or bosses to the supports, or driving studs into the supports using an appropriate tool…”
“…the architect, instead of going himself to look at the wall to decide whether it was safe to be left, spoke to the demolition contractor, who in turn took the opinion of the foreman, and the architect acted on that opinion. Having come to a decision that the wall could be left, he appears not to have taken any further step to satisfy himself of its safety, although it is abundantly clear that there were opportunities for him to examine it. There can be no doubt on these facts that the architect was negligent. No one has suggested that the wall, left as it was, was safe…The architect chose to rely upon the opinion of the demolition contractor. This must have been wrong if the evidence called before the judge is anything to go by. And, for my part, I can see no reason why it should be said that because an architect, instead of making sure for himself, accepts the opinion of another man whose opinion is given either negligently or certainly without sufficient examination, the architect is free from liability. He has done nothing more, as I see it, than appoint an agent to act for him to give a decision which it was his duty to give himself…" 74. "…was in a complete and in a literal sense in blind breach of his duty to the owner. He took not one of the steps which it was his bounden duty to take before permitting the wall to remain standing. He cannot, of course, escape that duty by putting the onus on to [the demolition contractor’s director]." 75. Davies LJ said at page 572: “I cannot for myself see how the architect is entitled to say:”
“11. So far as counsel's researches show, all the cases in which the question whether a contractor is under a duty to warn his client has been considered are ones where what was in issue was the safety or suitability of what the contractor was himself being asked to undertake. It has now been held by the Court of Appeal that if the duty to warn arises, it is part of the duty to act with the skill and care of an ordinarily competent contractor. What is to be expected of such a contractor will depend on the particular facts of the case. The facts of the Plant case show that, where a contractor is asked to do work, he is likely to be under a duty to warn his client if he knows that the work is dangerous, and that duty will not be negatived by the fact that the client is being advised by a professional person who knows, or ought himself to know, that the work is dangerous. 12. Thus, if Advanced had been instructed to carry out underpinning work which it knew to be unsuitable and dangerous, it would seem to follow from Plant that it would have been under a contractual duty to warn Avonforce, notwithstanding that Avonforce was being advised by KHP. No reasonably competent contractor would have failed to warn in such circumstances. It is interesting to note that at (1999) 69 ConLR 106 at 124 May LJ left over for future consideration circumstances where - (a) the contractor did not know, but arguably ought to have known, that the design was dangerous, and (b) where there was a design defect, of which the contractor knew or ought to have known, which was not dangerous. This shows the cautious and incremental approach that has been adopted in this area of the law.”
“(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, in any proceedings for contribution under section 1 above the amount of the contribution recoverable from any person shall be such as may be found by the court to be just and equitable having regard to the extent of that person’s responsibility for the damage in question. (2) Subject to subsection (3) below, the court shall have power in any such proceedings to exempt any person from liability to make contribution, or to direct that the contribution to be recovered from any person shall amount to a complete indemnity.”
“16. In my view, Denham’s case,, applying the principles in the Mersey Docks case, relevantly states and illustrates those elements of principles most relevant to the present appeal. To look for a transfer of a contract of employment is, in a case such as this, no more than a distracting device; in the present case a misleading one. Darren Strang's employment was not transferred. The inquiry should concentrate on the relevant negligent act and then ask whose responsibility it was to prevent it. Who was entitled, and perhaps theoretically obliged, to give orders as to how the work should or should not be done? In my view, "entire and absolute control" is not, at least since the Mersey Docks case, a necessary precondition of vicarious liability. 17. In the present appeal, Mr Prynne QC, for the third defendants, correctly formulated the question to determine vicarious liability, substantially as I have outlined it, as who was entitled to exercise control over the relevant act or operation of Darren Strang. He submitted, again I think correctly, that consent to any transfer was not a determinative factor in this case. He suggested that the judge looked at what Mr Horsley did, rather than what he was entitled to do. 18. The relevant negligent act was Darren Strang crawling through the duct. This was a foolish mistake on the spur of the moment. I have said that a central question is: who was entitled, and perhaps in theory obliged, to give orders as to how the work should or should not be done? Here there is no suggestion, on the facts found by the judge, that either Mr Horsley or Mr Megson had any real opportunity to prevent Darren's momentary foolishness. The judge specifically acquitted Mr Horsley of personal negligence: and we should proceed on the footing that Mr Megson was not personally negligent either. Vicarious liability is liability imposed by a policy of the law upon a party who is not personally at fault. So the core question on the facts of this case is who was entitled, and in theory, if they had had the opportunity, obliged, so to control Darren as to stop him crawling through the duct. In my judgment, the only sensible answer to that question in this case is that both Mr Megson and Mr Horsley were entitled, and in theory obliged, to stop Darren's foolishness. Mr Megson was the fitter in charge of Darren. Mr Horsley was the foreman on the spot. They were both entitled and obliged to control Darren's work, including the act which was his negligence. The second defendants, through Mr Horsley, would, I think, have qualified for vicarious liability, if it had been Mr Megson who foolishly crawled through the duct. It makes no difference to a sensible analysis that it was Darren who was negligent, and that Mr Megson in some respects was interposed. But neither is there any good sense in saying that, because Mr Horsley was relevantly entitled to control Darren, Mr Megson was not: and vice versa.”
“69. There being no single test, what one has to do is marshal various tests which should cumulatively point either towards an employer/employee relationship or away from one. Adopting that approach confirms that which is accepted as the common ground, namely, that Father Baldwin is not a true employee. The test may yet be useful to see whether he can be said to be an independent contractor, for if he is, the law is clear: the employer is not vicariously liable for the torts of his independent contractor. I am satisfied that Father Baldwin is no more a true independent contractor than he is an employee. For a start, he has no contractual relationship with his bishop. He is hardly a person in business on his own account with a free hand to carry out the job, if it is a job, as and when he wishes. 70. Whilst it may be useful to carry out some sort of comparative exercise for the purpose of ascertaining how close the relationship of Father Baldwin and the bishop is to a relationship of employer/employee as opposed to that of employer/ independent contractor, my judgment is that one should concentrate on the extent to which, if at all, he is in a position akin to employment. The cases analysed in the immediately preceding paragraphs should be noted with a view to abstracting from them, if it is possible, the essence of being an employee. To distil it to a single sentence I would say that an employee is one who is paid a wage or salary to work under some, if only slight, control of his employer in his employer's business for his employer's business. The independent contractor works in and for his own business at his risk of profit or loss.”
“Accordingly, what one was looking for was: "a situation where the employee in question, at any rate for relevant purposes, is so much a part of the work, business or organisation of both employers that it is just to make both employers answer for his negligence. "”