Read the full judgment text of FACV 000020/1999 on BabelCite. This FACV judgment was delivered on 19 May 2000 before Andrew Li CJ, Henry Litton PJ, Charles Ching PJ, Kemal Bokhary PJ, Lord Cooke of Thorndon NPJ.
Civil law – statutory duty – construction site safety – Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations, Cap. 59, regulation 38A – contractor's duty to ensure safe access and egress – sub-contract between designer and electrical sub-contractor for installation and dismantling of decorative lights on Hutchison House, the Furama Hotel and in Chater Garden – respondent fell from mobile ladder scaffold while clambering down using cross pieces rather than ladder and became quadriplegic – whether contractor could contract out of civil liability for breach of regulation – no contracting out effected because sub-contract and accompanying notes did not contain clear words excluding contractor's civil liability – 'special defence' of due diligence under Ross v. Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 768 not made out because appellant did not exercise due diligence, retaining only general design supervision – reliance on injured man's expertise not a defence where contractor itself ignorant of statutory duty – position of independent contractor not distinguishable from employee for purposes of statutory duty – causation established by showing no ladder provided or instructed and that accident would probably not have occurred with a ladder – first instance finding that respondent would not have used a ladder properly reversed on appeal because based on hypothetical question where onus lay on appellant – statutory duty to 'ensure' safe access cannot be read down to duty merely to 'suggest' – respondent 50% contributorily negligent – appeal dismissed with costs nisi in respondent's favour and legal aid taxation of respondent's costs ordered.
Legal issues: Whether civil liability for breach of regulation 38A can be contracted out · Whether the special defence of due diligence applies · Whether the accident was solely the fault of the respondent · Whether reliance on an independent contractor's expertise can defeat civil liability · Whether the Court of Appeal was justified in reversing the first instance finding on causation
Outcome: Appeal unanimously dismissed.