Summary Description: 

A case in which the claimant was regarded as an independent contractor so the subcontractor on a site was not vicariously liable when the claimant suffered an injury.  

Background: 

The claimant, a solar panel engineer, brought a claim against three defendants relating to a workplace accident. The main contractor had subcontracted the electrical works to another which subcontracted the installation of solar panels to another company.   The claimant was the sole director of this subcontracted company vis-à-vis solar panels.  The claimant submitted a risk assessment to the main contractor noting adverse weather as a hazard. 

On the day of the accident M attended with another of his employees to fit a panel to a metal roof.  He phoned the subcontractor stating there was light drizzle but they did not dissuade him noting that the job needed to be finished.  The roof was wet and the claimant fell causing injuries.  The main contractor gave evidence stating that he told the subcontractor not to instruct people to work externally on the day of the accident due to anticipatedbad weather. 

The claimant brought a claim against the subcontractor for damages as a result of the injuries suffered.  

Outcome: 

The issue was the relationship between the claimant and the defendant.   The Court held that the claimant, and his company, were specialist independent contractors hired under a contract for services to fit the solar panels. The claimant relied upon the decision in Uber citing that the relationship was one of employer/employee leading to a duty of reasonable care.  Such a link was dismissed by the court stating that it could not be said that the claimant was providing his services as part of the defendant’s business. Indeed, there were not the same elements of control in this case compared to the Uber case. Accordingly, it was the claimant’s decision to work on the roof and the defendant breached no legal duty by not mentioning the site manager’s previous phone call.  The claimant was aware or ought to have been aware that walking on the metal roof when wet was hazardous.  Accordingly, the case was dismissed.  

Practical Guidance for Employers: 

Whilst this case relates to a workplace accident and vicarious liability it provides another opportunity to look at the relationship between an individual carrying out work and a potential employer.   In this case, the Court of Session made it clear that way in which the work was carried out demonstrated that the claimant was an independent contractor with no duty bestowed upon the defendant sub-contractor.       

The full case can be viewed here:
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2023csoh84.pdf?sfvrsn=d214f6ac_1