[darren clarke]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314209/Polish-builder-fell-ladder-sues-homeowner.html

builder falls after women wont let him walk in her house and he has to use ladders,  how long before a wc sues a custy after they wont let him use wfp

[Jack Wallace]

Another imigrant tyring to get what he can out of the system. I dont like ladders but if he was using the wrong ones its his own fault not the home owners.

[AuRavelling79]

Another imigrant tyring to get what he can out of the system. I dont like ladders but if he was using the wrong ones its his own fault not the home owners.

Not really - if he is "just a labourer" his boss should have ensured he had the right equipment. So not the home owner or the labourer IMO.

[Jack Wallace]

Another imigrant tyring to get what he can out of the system. I dont like ladders but if he was using the wrong ones its his own fault not the home owners.

Not really - if he is "just a labourer" his boss should have ensured he had the right equipment. So not the home owner or the labourer IMO.

Perhaps your right, I have had my figers burned by an imigrant who tried to work the system at my expence so tend to be a bit blinkered.

[mikecam]

Another imigrant tyring to get what he can out of the system. I dont like ladders but if he was using the wrong ones its his own fault not the home owners.

Not really - if he is "just a labourer" his boss should have ensured he had the right equipment. So not the home owner or the labourer IMO.

Thats the interesting thing about this appeal. Apparently (there's plenty about it on the web if you look) his employer did not have any safe systems of work, no workable H&S policy etc.. From what i've read the grounds for his appeal against the homeowner stems from the fact that the homeowner wouldn't let him access the roof from the safest place, in this case through a bedroom window ,and after refusing him the safest access provided him with a dodgy ladder that wasn't suitable for the job.
 Anyhow, now we're about to find out exactly what a homeowners legal dutys are to anyone working on their home.

[Paul Coleman]

I think it's a pity that her husband is a lawyer because of the probable tendency for the legal system to look after it's own.  An impartial verdict would be much more likely IMO if this wasn't the case.
I think the householders reason is a poor one because he could easily have removed his boots before entering.  I think it would be a huge mistake to assess this racially too.  Some seem to think he should lose because he is an "East European trying to milk the system".  It could just as easily be you or me.  An important precedent could be set here that could affect certain aspects of how we work.
I feel that he may have a case but not so much for being refused safe access.  His case, IMO, would stem more from being supplied by the householder with a ladder that wasn't fit for purpose.  If a ruling in his favour were to take that route then, IMO, a strong precedent would not have been set.

[darren clarke]

i didnt post it becasue he was polish, i just thought it was a point of intrest for wc over who is responsable if some one has an accident

[woody1]

Good he should sue her, she is a stuck up btch could have killed him he should sue his employer too bet his boss was so worried about him not

[gewindows]

Thats not a £4m house.

I'd sue the builders if thats the case for selling her a dump of a pad that they claim is worth £4m when it looks like it would do well to breach the £500,000 mark.

[AuRavelling79]

I didn't pick up on the householder loaning the ladder - that does put a different slant on it - IMO.

Perhaps there is blame on the householder and the business owner proportionally - and yes the labourer although pressured by the owner (tacitly)and the householder (directly) could have exercised the right not to climb. But overall, in my view the labourer should have been protected primarily by the business owner. But is there any money available to be claimed there?

But I understand how it could have happened - fussy custy getting the job on the cheap by not getting workers equipped with the right gear - obliging workmen acceding to her demands - perhaps the ladder just needed footing?

Judge Malky Solomon now rules:  

Claim £100,000 (say)

Knock that back to £80K for being "adventurous":-

Householder (through their insurance) £20K
Business owner   £40K
Labourer £20K

So labourer bears 25% Householder 25% Business owner 50% responsibility.

Labourer gets 60K

Insurers cough up, precedent set, lesson learned.

No insurers? Ooh err Missus!

[AuRavelling79]

Good he should sue her, she is a stuck up btch could have killed him he should sue his employer too bet his boss was so worried about him not

Edited to add: I reckon you said that better and quicker than me!

[gewindows]

Good he should sue her, she is a stuck up btch could have killed him he should sue his employer too bet his boss was so worried about him not

Why is she a stuck up bitch?

[woody1]

not anting him to go inside stupid women

[gewindows]

Nothing qrong with that.

It is her house, she can have who she wants in it she doesnt have to give a reason nor for it to be viable, its her place


Im sure people say things on here to antagonise on purpose

[john tomkins]

I can't understand why he originally requested to access the house - specifically the bedroom- to get on to the garage roof to repair a leak?
Surely there is a driveway and it can be accessed by ladder that way?
What was he gonna do, drag all his tools ,roll of felt, blowlamp etc etc through her bedroom?
Doesn't show anything in the pics of the garage unfortunately

[Paul Coleman]

i didnt post it becasue he was polish, i just thought it was a point of intrest for wc over who is responsable if some one has an accident

I had Jack's response in mind more than your original post.