When a workman injured his spine falling from a ladder he found leaning against the wall while working in a room, the ladder's owner was not liable to contribute towards damages even though the ladder was under the owner's control, ruled the Court of Appeal.

The ladder's owner, East Potential Ltd, appealed a court order that they should contribute 25% to the damages imposed on the other defendants for personal injury to the workman, Adam Mason.

The court heard Mason was employed by Satelcom to service electronic equipment belonging to East Potential’s neighbour which was on the wall of East Potential’s room.

Someone unlocked the room for him to access the equipment and he had used a ladder he found in the room leaning against the wall. The ladder was too short for him to adequately reach the electronic equipment and carry out his work with both hands. He tried to use the ladder to finish his job, but fell, injuring his back.

Mason had claimed contribution on the basis of regulation 3(3)(4) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (SI 1992 No 2932), which imposed duties on a person having control of the equipment to the extent of his control.

East Potential had control of the ladder only to the extent that they could have moved it elsewhere or placed a notice on it, but in the absence of a finding that East Potential owned the ladder it was difficult to say what the extent of their control was beyond ensuring that it did not get in anyone’s way.