Afternoon:
9°c
A woman facing a six-figure compensation claim after a workman was injured at her home has been told she will not have to pay a penny.
A High Court ruling ends four years of worry for Nadia Isaacs of Hampstead.
Tomasz Kmiecic, 31, shattered his right elbow and suffered hip and thigh injuries when a ladder that was too short for the job toppled over as he was climbing up to Mrs Isaacs's garage roof. His injuries mean he can no longer work as a carpenter and general builder.
His lawyers claimed that as it was her ladder, Mrs Isaacs was legally responsible for the accident.
Mrs Justice Swift ruled that the real culprit was the building contractor for whom Mr Kmiecic was working as a casual labourer.
Arkadiusz Sniegula, trading as Armag Decoration, had no appropriate insurance, and had insisted the job go ahead despite the absence of suitable equipment. He had also concealed the accident from Mrs Isaacs.
The judge said the facts suggested Mr Sniegula was “in respect of this work at least irresponsible and incompetent” and he “may have deserved the epithet of a cowboy operator”.
Reader views (3)
Mr Krysztof's case was brought under Regulations designed to protect people who work at height. It would be quite wrong to think of these Regulations as an example of over the top health and safety legislation. Falls from height are the most frequent cause of fatalities in workplace accidents. Given the potentially catastrophic consequences of such falls it is perhaps not suprising that there is legislation to ensure that such work is properly planned and organised.
The Regulations apply both to employers and to people who have control over the way the work is carried out. Mr Krysztof was working for an uninsured cowboy builder who was not present at the site. The issue in Mr Krysztof's case was whether the homeowner had assumed sufficient control over the works for the Regulations to apply to her.
- Richard Geraghty, London, UK, 24/09/2010 12:40
Report abuse
Ah no win no fee lawyers, just roll the dice! Homeowners liability insurance will be good for a juicy payout.....I hope costs were awarded against them.
- Mark, London, 15/03/2010 17:29
Report abuse
Dumbstruck by the fact this incident went to court involving the householder in the first place, and that it's taken them 1460 days (at least) to reach a decision.
- Cap, London, 15/03/2010 12:57
Report abuse
