First Defendant in breach of The Construction (Health and Safety at Work) Regulations 1996 No.6 with Claimant guilty of 30% contributory negligence. Second Defendant also liable on basis that he failed as an occupier to take reasonable steps to ensure First Defendant was a competent independent contractor. In particular he had not checked the insurance position of Mr Rooney. He had also failed to establish the defence under Section 2(4) of Occupiers Liability Act 1957. However, Claimant fai ...
|
First Defendant in breach of The Construction (Health and Safety at Work) Regulations 1996 No.6 with Claimant guilty of 30% contributory negligence. Second Defendant also liable on basis that he failed as an occupier to take reasonable steps to ensure First Defendant was a competent independent contractor. In particular he had not checked the insurance position of Mr Rooney. He had also failed to establish the defence under Section 2(4) of Occupiers Liability Act 1957. However, Claimant fai ...
|
Northern Ireland: First Defendant in breach of The Construction (Health and Safety at Work) Regulations 1996 No.6 with Claimant guilty of 30% contributory negligence. Second Defendant also liable on basis that he failed as an occupier to take reasonable steps to ensure First Defendant was a competent independent contractor. In particular he had not checked the insurance position of Mr Rooney. He had also failed to establish the defence under Section 2(4) of Occupiers Liability Act 1957. How ...
|
First Defendant in breach of The Construction (Health and Safety at Work) Regulations 1996 No.6 with Claimant guilty of 30% contributory negligence. Second Defendant also liable on basis that he failed as an occupier to take reasonable steps to ensure First Defendant was a competent independent contractor. In particular he had not checked the insurance position of Mr Rooney. He had also failed to establish the defence under Section 2(4) of Occupiers Liability Act 1957. However, Claimant fai ...
|
| 1 |