Contributory negligence and risk assessments

A recent High Court judgment serves as a timely reminder for both businesses and their insurers that a claimant's own health and safety documentation can be a significant factor in contributory negligence findings, even where primary liability is not in dispute.

What Happened

In Richardson v William Beech Skip Hire Ltd [2026] EWHC 1341 (KB), with RPC acting for the defendant, the court had a rare opportunity to make a decision on contributory negligence. The defendant had already admitted liability for its employee's negligence, so the sole issue at trial was whether the claimant had been contributory negligent.

The claimant, an experienced agricultural engineer, was invited to a skip hire company's yard to measure and photograph the blades and serial number of a demolition grab fitted to a Caterpillar Waste Handler. While he was positioned between the grab and the body of the machine (with the engine running and the grab in motion) an employee in the cab inadvertently knocked the joystick control. The grab retracted suddenly, crushing the claimant's legs against the machine. He subsequently underwent bilateral through-knee amputations.

The Risk Assessment

Just weeks before the accident and a point which would be in RPC's view crucial to any finding of contributory negligence, the claimant's own company had produced a written risk assessment entitled "RA 003 Machinery Maintenance." It expressly identified "running machinery" and "unisolated equipment" as hazards and set out clear control measures: "Do make sure that the equipment is turned off. Isolate machinery before any maintenance cleaning or adjustment."

The claimant argued at trial that the risk assessment was irrelevant because he was not carrying out maintenance, he was simply noting a serial number at his customer's request. The judge rejected that distinction and held that, whilst the task was not machinery maintenance in the narrow sense, "the rationale behind the risk assessment applies equally to any work undertaken on running machinery." The common-sense requirement to isolate or switch off equipment before working near it did not disappear simply because the label on the job changed.

The Finding

The court held that the claimant had been careless for his own safety and the judge went so far as to say it was 'reckless' of the claimant to move towards and touch the grab without knowing it might be activated. CCTV footage showed him walking deliberately towards the descending grab and placing himself in the confined gap between it and the machine, despite the cab's warning light showing the engine was running. He could easily have waited a matter of seconds for the grab to stop and the machine to be made safe. That was not mere inadvertence, it was a conscious, avoidable act.

Whilst the Court did not agree that the level of the claimant's fault for the accident was as high as 40% or the one third contended for by the defendant, the court found 20% was more appropriate because it would mean that the defendant had been four times as culpable as the claimant for the accident. The defendant's significantly greater culpability, through its employee's failure to isolate the machine and a director's failure to intervene, limited the reduction.

The Takeaway

This case underlines that safety documentation is a double-edged sword. It demonstrates good practice, but if you fail to follow it, a court will hold you to it and may apply it more broadly than you intended. For defendants, it confirms that a claimant's pre-accident risk assessments are valuable evidence when investigating and defending claims arising from accidents involving independent contractors, and are worth seeking out at an early stage.