Overview

This webinar explores the complex area of contributory negligence in employer’s liability cases. It examines how courts approach allegations that an employee’s actions contributed to their own injury, drawing on key case law to illustrate judicial reasoning. Delegates will gain a clear understanding of the distinction between hindsight judgments and legitimate findings of negligence.

The session will focus on how courts carefully assess claims of contributory negligence, emphasising that an employee’s familiarity with their work or momentary inattention does not automatically amount to contributory negligence. Through detailed analysis of landmark cases, delegates will learn how findings are reached and occasionally overturned on appeal.

By reviewing the principles established in cases such as Staveley Iron & Chemical Co Ltd v Jones [1956] AC 627 and Cooper v Carillion [2003] EWCA Civ 181, this webinar provides a practical guide to the judicial approach in these often contentious claims.

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this session, delegates will be able to:

• Understand the legal principles governing allegations of contributory negligence in employer’s liability cases.
• Recognise the difference between hindsight judgments and actionable employee negligence.
• Identify when contributory negligence may be properly considered by a court.
• Analyse key cases where findings of contributory negligence have been upheld or overturned.
• Apply judicial guidance in assessing claims involving workplace injuries.
• Evaluate employer and employee responsibilities in preventing workplace accidents.
• Develop strategies to advise clients on contributory negligence issues effectively.

Judicial observations

"It is very easy for a judge with the advantage of hindsight to identify some act on the part of the employee which would have avoided the accident occurring. That in itself does not demonstrate negligence on the part of the employee. As Lord Tucker put it in Staveley Iron & Chemical Co Ltd v Jones[1956] AC 627 at 648, one must avoid treating every risky act by an employee due to familiarity with the work or some inattention resulting from noise or strain as contributory negligence" (Cooper v Carillion [2003] EWCA Civ 181.)

This webinar is part of a 3 session series

This series looks at the law, practice and reality of contributory negligence in detail.

Presented by top barrister Gordon Exall, the three part series covers:

• Contributory negligence: The law, practice and special cases
• Contributory negligence in road traffic cases: Do all roads lead to Froom? 
• Contributory negligence and accidents at work: Not every risky act is contributory negligence