Lack of evidence may have reduced negligence award

The claimant was injured when he was attempting to lift a steel casting with an overhead crane. He had attached the crane hook to the casting and had started to lift it using the handheld control when the hook became detached and struck him in the face. He lost consciousness and could not recall why the hook had become detached. There were no other witnesses to the accident and there was no engineering evidence to help the court on this point.

The Court of Appeal thought that engineering evidence would have been helpful but it found that the steel casting had jammed and that the hook had dislodged as the crane continued to pull against the casting. The system of work was unsafe. Notwithstanding that it was unclear whether the hook had become detached because it deformed under load or because it was insecure in the first place, liability was established. The claimant had stood too near to the crane and the discount for contributory negligence was increased from 25% to 50% on appeal.

COMMENT

The defendant had argued against the need for expert evidence and there is a duty to restrict this under CPR part 35. However, such evidence can be useful where, as here, there are doubts about how the accident occurred. In addition the finding of 50% contributory negligence possibly reflects the court's doubts about the accident circumstances. Rodney Wilson, BLM Liverpool.