Case study - serious injury on construction site

The Claimant, a self-employed Senior Fire Sprinkler Fitter sustained serious injuries as a consequence of an incident which occurred whilst working at a building site under the control of the Defendant, a building contractor.

The Claimant was working alone and was engaged in the process of testing a newly installed overhead sprinkler system for leaks when the incident occurred.

The Claimant had climbed into a roof space above a free standing internal structure within the main building. To the side of the internal structure was an unprotected void with a drop to ground level of approximately 3 metres. No lighting was available and the edge of the void was completely unprotected.

Prior to entering the roof space the Claimant had requested suitable plant to be made available for access the overhead pipes to include lighting. The request was not heeded. The Claimant, working alone, utilised an aluminium ladder which had been left within the roof space in order to climb up to where the leak had been located along with the torch function built into his mobile phone. Having taken three steps the aluminium ladder slipped from underneath him causing him to fall into the unprotected void.

The Claimant sustained a multitude of injuries including spinal, knee and a serious laceration to his head with substantial blood loss. The Claimant also sustained psychiatric harm. The Claimant was air lifted to hospital. Despite the nature of the injuries the Claimant made a remarkable recovery and was able to return to work within 16 weeks of the incident albeit on light duties. The Claimant subsequently obtained managerial roles.

Breach of Duty was denied despite a successful Health & Safety Executive prosecution.

Proceedings were issued citing breaches of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 on the basis that the Defendant had failed to provide sufficient safe access and egress to the site, failed to arrange the site to ensure its suitability for persons working there taking into account necessary work equipment, failure to provide adequate lighting and suitable means of access and egress to the pipes. The Claimant also alleged that the Defendant had caused or permitted the edge of the void to be unprotected.

The matter settled following the issue of proceedings but prior to the relisting of the Costs and Case Management Conference. The Claimant accepted £35,000 subject to a reduction of 30% to reflect contributory negligence.