Stephanie discusses the case of Jamie Yates v National Trust which looks at the duties of care owed by an occupier to his contractor’s employees.
The last month has seen some interesting cases reported and one which particularly caught my eye is the case of Jamie Yates v National Trust. This case highlights the duties of care owed by an occupier to his contractor’s employees (in this case to those working at height).
In this case the claimant was engaged as part of a team to fell a diseased horse chestnut tree in the gardens of a National Trust premises. Whilst 50 feet above ground level he fell and suffered severe injuries to his spine which rendered him paraplegic. He claimed against National Trust for negligence and for breach of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.
The National Trust (NT)had engaged a tree surgeon, Joe Jackman, to undertake the felling of the tree. The claimant was a member of his team on this occasion and had worked for Jackman on a casual basis. Jackman did not hold a relevant certificate for the specific felling and NT was aware of this but had engaged him on various contracts in the past. Jackman had public liability insurance but it was unclear whether this covered those working for him.
The claimant alleged that NT owed him a duty of care and had not taken reasonable care to ensure work methods were safe and competent and that NT was negligent in its choice of contractor.
Although NT owed him a duty of care as lawful visitor to its premises under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 that was irrelevant as the state of the premises was not unsafe – it was his activity as a tree surgeon that caused his injury. Although the Work at Height Regulations 2005 imposed a duty, even on a non-employer to ensure that those working at height were safe, it was dependent on exercising control over the work. NT did not have such control as the claimant worked under the instruction of Jackman.
Whilst tree surgery is hazardous and a failure to exercise reasonable care in its choice of independent contractor may make NT liable to the ordinary visitor it was too onerous to extend this to the contractor’s employees or sub contractors. The case concluded that there was no obligation on NT either to ensure that the claimant was covered by Jackman’s insurance.
The injuries no doubt drastically changed the claimant’s life and he suffered significant losses but there was no liability on National Trust (and therefore its insurers) to compensate him.
