Plasterer loses High Court appeal over brain injury suffered in fall

A self-employed plasterer who suffered a brain injury after falling from an unfenced mezzanine floor at a construction site has lost his High Court appeal for more damages.

Charles Lee attempted to overturn an earlier ruling by Chelmsford County Court that found he was foul of contributory negligence in the fall and reduced the amount of damages he could claim by a third as a result.

Lee suffered serious injuries, including fractures to his skull, nose, jaw, left eye socket, both wrists and ribs and a brain injury, when he fell from the mezzanine at a construction site for a new-build property at Highfields Caldecote, Cambridge, in July 2018 while helping to move plasterboards.

At the time of the fall he had not commenced work at the site and had visited on his way home from another job to check on materials.

The court had previously ruled his damages should be reduced on the grounds that the absence of the guard rail and crash mats was obvious to all concerned.

“The risk of falling was foreseeable, the appellant offered/agreed to undertake the moving of plasterboards onto the mezzanine on a site with which he was unfamiliar,” the court heard.

“The appellant did not take sufficient care when on the mezzanine to keep away from the obvious edge and the appellant had a concurrent duty to take responsibility for his own health and safety which he failed to do.”

Lee had sought to overturn the judgement but on Tuesday (1 April) Mrs Justice Cutts, sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, dismissed his appeal.

“The judge’s findings of fact were properly made,” she said. “The judge was entitled to draw the inference that the appellant was contributorily negligent on the basis of the facts as he found them and was entitled to make a finding of a reduction of one third for contributory negligence. This appeal is therefore dismissed.”

The court heard Lee, then aged 34, was a self-employed plasterer with 17 years’ experience and was engaged by computer engineer Parminder Singh Khraud, who was project managing the new-build at his property, and Michael Fletcher and Jason Wright, who operate as a partnership trading as Sheerline Plastering.

Sheerline Plastering was contracted to plasterboard and skim the property and Fletcher was at the property at the time of the incident.

On the day of the incident, Lee visited the site to make preparations for starting work. He helped a labourer to move plasterboards from ground level to the first floor but as there was no edge protection he fell 2.4 metres from the landing and spent three weeks in hospital.

As a result of the incident, the Health and Safety Executive prosecuted Fletcher and he pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 6 (3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and was fined £2,000. It found he had failed to plan for the right equipment, such as guard rails.

Sheerline Plastering was scheduled to begin work on the day of the accident, which involved fixing plasterboard to the internal walls and ceilings and then plastering.

The mezzanine floor was to become the first-floor hallway. It was 5 metres wide and was bounded at two ends by the walls of the bedrooms.

“On the day of the accident, it was open on the two other sides which were opposite each other. The open sides had been protected by fixed ‘birdcage’ scaffolding and, after that was removed, by mobile scaffolding towers which were pushed against the open sides to form a barrier,” the court heard.

“There was also a crash deck. However, the towers were removed and the ground floor was completely cleared to enable the underfloor heating system to be fitted.”

The incident happened prior to the mobile scaffolding towers being re-erected.

“By judgement dated 1 September 2023 the judge found that, although it was not possible on the evidence for him to find how the accident happened, he could draw the reasonable inference that the appellant had failed to take reasonable care to avoid the obvious and foreseeable risk of falling from the mezzanine floor,” the court heard.

“The accident would have been avoided had he taken reasonable care for his own safety.”

All the defendants had conceded primary liability for the accident prior to their trial in 2023, accepting that a guard rail should have been in place.