Legal Case Summary
Wheeler v Copas [1981] 3 All ER 405
Tort law – Negligence – Duty of care
Facts
The plaintiff was a partner in a bricklaying company. The defendant was a farmer who wanted a house built on his farm and negotiated for this directly with the plaintiff. They agreed on a labour only contract, with the plaintiff due to provide materials and any equipment needed for the work. They required a ladder for the project; the plaintiff selected one of the ladders from the farm. During use, the ladder gave way and the plaintiff was injured. He sued for damages for personal injury on the basis that the defendant owed a duty of care as an occupier under the Occupier’s Liability Act 1957. If this claim had failed, the plaintiff would have argued that the defendant was negligent as he did not provide suitable equipment for the work.
Issue
The legal issue, in this case, was whether a duty of care was owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. If this could be established, it was important to understand to which extent each of the parties had contributed to the negligence and accident.
Decision / Outcome
The court held that the defendant was not liable under the Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 because although the Act might be appropriate to the facts of this case, the defendant could not be deemed the ‘occupier’ once it was handed over. Following this, the court agreed that the defendant was negligent for failing to provide an adequate ladder for the job. However, this liability was limited by the fact that the plaintiff should have recognised the inadequacy of the ladder. On this basis, he contributed to the negligence.
Updated 20 March 2026
This summary accurately reflects the decision in Wheeler v Copas [1981] 3 All ER 405. The legal principles discussed — occupiers’ liability under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and contributory negligence — remain good law. The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 has not been materially amended in ways that would affect the analysis in this case. The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, under which contributory negligence was apportioned, also remains in force. No subsequent case law has overruled or significantly limited the authority of this decision. The article remains broadly accurate as a case summary. Readers should note that the article contains a minor imprecision: the plaintiff was required to source equipment under the labour-only contract, but the ladder was taken from the defendant’s farm rather than supplied by the plaintiff — a factual nuance relevant to why the negligence claim succeeded in part. This does not affect the legal principles described. Overall, this case summary remains a reliable statement of the law as it stood and continues to stand.
