Employing A Contractor - Liable For Their Safety ?

[Jap90s]

I've just seen this

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgkl35d2m2o

It appears that home owners have paid a self-employed contractor to weed kill their fields, he's had an accident and now they are in Court

I understand an employer being liable for an employees health and safety but this is a self-employed contractor

As a homeowner how much are we supposed to know about the safe use of quad bikes etc which would be precisely why you'd employ someone who presumably knows more than you

[LastPoster]

This doesn't appear to be a case of a domestic homeowner employing a contractor

The work was being done in a rented field and in another article the land is described as "their neighbouring farm" and it's not clear who owned the Quad, but it could be the defendants. The other article also states the deceased had received no training to use the Quad


CDM regs outline the responsibilities of the client in a domestic situation

https://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/areyou/client....

Edited by LastPoster on Thursday 16th October 07:50

[zbc]

I may have missed it but it's not clear in the article who the ATV belonged to. If it belonged to the couple and they let the gardener use it then yes they should have some responsibility for its condition.

[John D.]

Sounds like they supplied the equipment (quad bike and sprayer) to work in the field they had rented. The equipment seems to be potential cause of accident. Expect that is the nub of it.

Its not like he was mowing their back garden using his own equipment.

[Jap90s]

I admit I assumed, when he was referred to as a self employed contractor, that it was his quad

I have a guy flail my hedges and field and he provides the equipment

[trickywoo]

I had some building work done recently and the main guy who I was paying for the job wanted me to pay his assistant directly rather than him pay them.

Seemed very odd. I couldn’t work out the angle but I’d guess if the other guy had an accident I’d have been on the hook.

[John D.]

trickywoo said:

I had some building work done recently and the main guy who I was paying for the job wanted me to pay his assistant directly rather than him pay them.

Seemed very odd. I couldn t work out the angle but I d guess if the other guy had an accident I d have been on the hook.

More likely tax reasons I expect.

[LastPoster]

John D. said:

trickywoo said:

I had some building work done recently and the main guy who I was paying for the job wanted me to pay his assistant directly rather than him pay them.

Seemed very odd. I couldn t work out the angle but I d guess if the other guy had an accident I d have been on the hook.

More likely tax reasons I expect.

Probably correct, but the consequence for Trickywoo could be that he assumes a number of duties that he wouldn't if only employing a single contractor, and this includes H&S responsibilities over and above if all work is passed to a single contractor.

[55palfers]

trickywoo said:

I had some building work done recently and the main guy who I was paying for the job wanted me to pay his assistant directly rather than him pay them.

Seemed very odd. I couldn t work out the angle but I d guess if the other guy had an accident I d have been on the hook.

You may be paying him but you have no responsibility for allocating or directing his work.