Description
The pursuer, as curator ad litem for Ronald Pate, sought damages on behalf of Mr Pate who suffered injuries when he fell from a roof which he had been tiling in the course of his employment. Quantum had been agreed and the case proceeded on the question of liability and contributory negligence. Mr Pate was carrying out work on an extension to a property. The first defenders were the main contractors. The second defender, who employed Mr Pate, was contracted to do the roofing. Prior to the proof, the action against the second defenders had been abandoned. Mr Pate had no recollection of the event. He averred that as he walked along a scaffolding platform at the edge of the roof, he lost his footing and fell to the ground to his injury. He also pled an alternative case that as he walked along the roof where scaffolding had been removed, he fell. The claim was made under common law and in terms of Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 ("the 1996 regulations"), Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 ("the 1998 regulations") and Work at Height Regulations 2005 ("the 2005 regulations"). Lord Jones found that Mr Pate had reported to the site manager for the first defenders that he had finished working on the roof. Mr Pate then returned to the roof by ladder (which had not been removed by the first defenders) and began to use a Stihl saw to trim tiles between the old and new area of the roof. As he did so, he lost his footing and fell. Held: that at the time of the accident, there was no edge protection and the trestles at the edge of the roof had been dismantled; that the first defenders were in breach of their common law duty to the pursuer; they were in breach of their duties under 5(2) and 5(3) the 1996 regulations and 6(2) and 6(3) of the 2005 regulations; that the defender was one third contributory negligent for his own actings.
