Description
The Appellant was having his loft insulated by the Respondent. The Appellant offered to stand with a pole underneath the hinged hatch door to the loft to ensure that the vibrations from the Respondent's drilling did not lead to the hatch opening and the Respondent falling from the Appellant's loft. The Appellant then went to answer the phone and left the Respondent while drilling. The Respondent fell through the hatch and suffered injuries. At first instance, it was held that the Appellant owed a duty of care to the Respondent.
The Court of Appeal held that the Appellant had assumed responsibility for the Respondent by undertaking to ensure that the hatch remained closed. In involving himself in a hazardous activity, the Appellant put himself in a degree of proximity to the Respondent. It was foreseeable that if he neglected his task, the hatch might open and cause the Respondent injury. It was fair and reasonable to impose a duty. Even though the Appellant had offered to help due to a concern about the vibrations from drilling, and the vibration was found not to be the cause of the hatch opening, the Appellant had abandoned his post in breach of his duty. It did not matter that the Respondent had not relied upon the Appellant's input.
