xs
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more
Law Cases
Tort Law Cases
Vicarious Liability Cases

Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust [2003] QB 443

Country:
United Kingdom
By Oxbridge Law Team
Lord Woolf CJ (ma...
Sedley LJ (minori...

  • Defendant 1 contracted Defendant 2 to set up a trampoline at a charity fundraiser. Defendant 2 had told Defendant 1 that it had public liability insurance, when in fact it did not.

  • Plaintiff was injured because the trampoline was set up badly and settled with Defendant 2 for a lesser amount than he would have received had Defendant 2 had public liability insurance.

  • Plaintiff claimed Defendant 1 had a duty of care to those attending to ensure that Defendant 2 had the liability insurance and therefore sued Defendant 1 for the amount it would have received had there been insurance, minus the amount it received in the settlement.

  • CA denied the claim. 

Lord Woolf CJ (majority approach)

  • This activity was “inherently risky” (extra-hazardous) and Defendant 1 had a duty to take reasonable care to ensure suitability of the contractor i.e. liable for Defendant 2’s negligence.

  • However, upon being (falsely) told by Defendant 2 that the insurance existed, it would be unfair to expect Defendant 1 to actually check the document and Defendant 1 had fulfilled its duty.

  • Majority say there is a duty to enquire into the insurance status of the independent contractors (IC).

Sedley LJ (minority approach)

  • There is no duty to inquire as to the insurance of the IC - not fair, just and reasonable” to impose such a duty.

  • Also if there is a duty to ensure safety of the participants, ensuring that there is adequate insurance could not possibly be a part of this. 

 ---

Sedley LJ seems right: there is no precedent of a duty to check that there is insurance cover and if there is a duty of care owed by Defendant 1 it must be to ensure that the contractor has suitable safety standards, NOT to ensure that there will be compensation should those standards be breached. 

Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch

Similar cases

Ferguson v Welsh
Defendant, a council, contracted S to demolish a building, who in turn, contrary to their contract with Defendant (there was a clause prohibiting sub-contracting), subcontracted to W, who employed Pl...
Lister v Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co
Defendant, a driver, had injured his father, a fellow worker, who had sued the company successfully for vicarious liability. The company, Plaintiff, then sued Defendant for breach of contract since t...
Salsbury v Woodland
Defendant 1 contracted Defendant 2 (supposedly competent) to remove a tree from his garden but Defendant 2 did the work so badly that a branch caused telephone wires to fall across the wires on top a...
Woodland v Essex CC
Generally, a party is not held liable for the negligent actions of an independent contractor unless the party's selection of the contractor was negligent itself. However, non-delegable duties can ari...
Vesta v Butcher
Defendant, a brokerage firm, negligently failed to take action on instructions given to them by Plaintiff, a firm of insurers, following which Plaintiff suffered loss (they failed to obtain a valid c...

logo

Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.

©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.