“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.)

As the Cooper case shows allegations of contributory negligence when injured whilst at work are subject to very particular guidance as to the approach that judges should take. 

This webinar looks at the case law in detail.

• The approach the court’s should take to allegations in employer’s liability cases
   
• Cases where findings of contributory negligence have been overturned on appeal
   
• Cases where contributory negligence has been found and the reasons for this

---

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