James v Butler: Love thy neighbour - but let him do his own DIY
James v Butler: Love thy neighbour - but let him do his own DIY
James v Butler [2005] EWCA Civ 1014 CA (Civ Div) (Sedley LJ, Rix LJ, Smith LJ)
The claimant wanted a conservatory built. He purchased a conservatory kit complete with instructions, and needed the labour to build it. The defendant, the claimant's neighbour, and a man "able to turn his hand to many types of building work" was to be paid £300 to erect the conservatory in his spare time.
On the day of the accident, the claimant and the defendant were working together fitting rafters to the roof of the conservatory, which was substantially built by this time. The claimant went to make cups of coffee and the defendant kept working, fitting another rafter. The claimant returned a few minutes later, bringing the defendant a cup of coffee. As he entered the conservatory he was struck in the eye by one end of a falling rafter and suffered a serious injury. It was common ground that this falling rafter was that fitted by the Defendant whilst the claimant was making coffee.
The claimant sued the defendant in negligence, alleging that he had caused or permitted the rafter to fall and that he had failed to warn the claimant as he entered the conservatory that the rafter was insecure and may fall. The defendant asserted that he had secured the rafter temporarily with a screw tightened by hand and was descending the ladder to get a screwdriver when the claimant re-entered the conservatory.
The claimant's claim was dismissed at trial. Central to that conclusion was the Recorder's approach to the standard of care. The claimant contended that the defendant was a professional contractor and should be judged accordingly. The defendant countered that he was only a general labourer and that less should be expected of him. The Recorder preferred the defendant's argument on this point, judging his actions by the standard of the general labourer. The Recorder came to the self-evident conclusion that as the rafter fell, the defendant had not secured the rafter by tightening the screw with his fingers, and that this had caused the accident. The defendant's evidence was that he believed the screw had bitten into the aluminium of the rafter. The Recorder found that it was reasonable for the defendant to hold that belief. He concluded that it was reasonable for a general labourer to think that the rafter would be safe for a short time, acknowledging that more may have been expected of a professional contractor. He added that if he were wrong on primary liability, he would have made a finding of 50 per cent contributory negligence on the basis that the claimant ought to have asked permission to enter the conservatory before doing so.
The central issue on the claimant's appeal to the Court of Appeal was the 'reasonable belief' defence which the defendant had successfully run at trial.
The Court of Appeal was unwilling to disturb the Recorder's finding that the defendant was to be judged as a general labourer. However, Smith LJ (with whom Rix and Sedley LJJ agreed) held that the distinction between general labourer and professional contractor was of no importance in this case. The point was best illustrated by an analogy drawn by claimant's counsel: "..the negligent motorist who, having driven out of a side road into and main road and into collision with an approaching car, claims that he looked carefully both ways before proceeding. The fact that he believes that he looked carefully does not avail him because he cannot have done so in fact. If he had done so he would have seen the car which was plainly there."
Sedley LJ, in the shortest of the three judgements, encapsulated the case in a few sentences: "...the fall of the rafter is consistent only with it having been inadequately secured.... That being so, the defendant ....will have been liable to the claimant for the consequences unless the defendant could establish that his failure to secure the rafter end had occurred without negligence on his part. There was no such evidence."
As to the Recorder's conclusion on contributory negligence, this too was overturned. Smith LJ viewed it as unreasonable to expect the claimant to seek permission to enter the conservatory, and concluded that in any event, had he sought such permission the Defendant would not have withheld it.
If common sense should be the guiding principle of the common law, the Court of Appeal's decision must be welcomed. The facts in this case speak for themselves. The Defendant could not have tightened the screw sufficiently. On that basis he was properly held liable for what happened when the improperly-secured rafter fell free.