## Facts

- Mr. Brumder, a mechanic employed by Motornet Services and Repairs Ltd, suffered a serious hand injury while repairing a vehicle on a ramp.
- The ramp lacked an automatic locking mechanism, a safety feature common to similar equipment.
- Mr. Brumder alleged that Motornet breached its duty of care by failing to provide a ramp with this safety feature.
- The case focused on whether the absence of the automatic lock rendered the ramp unsafe and directly caused Mr. Brumder's injury.
- The Court of Appeal reviewed industry standards, the foreseeability of the risk, and whether Mr. Brumder's actions contributed to the incident.

## Issues

1. Whether Motornet Services and Repairs Ltd breached its duty of care by failing to provide a ramp with an automatic locking mechanism.
2. Whether the harm suffered by Mr. Brumder was reasonably foreseeable by a reasonable employer in Motornet's position.
3. Whether the breach of duty directly caused Mr. Brumder's injury, applying the 'but for' test.
4. Whether contributory negligence by Mr. Brumder reduced or affected liability.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal examined whether the missing safety feature constituted a breach of duty by Motornet.
- The court considered if the risk of injury was reasonably foreseeable and assessed whether industry standards supported this expectation.
- Applying the 'but for' test, the court scrutinized the causal link between the absence of the automatic locking mechanism and the injury.
- The court reviewed Mr. Brumder's conduct to determine if contributory negligence was present and, if so, its impact on the claim.
- The analysis emphasized the need for factual evidence and expert testimony in resolving such claims.

## Legal Principles

- Breach of duty is judged by reference to reasonable foreseeability of harm and prevailing industry standards.
- The 'but for' test is the principal method to establish causation in negligence claims.
- General types of harm, not the precise manner of occurrence, must be foreseeable.
- Expert evidence can be important in determining accepted practices and the foreseeability of risks in the relevant industry.
- Contributory negligence may reduce damages if the claimant's conduct contributed to the injury.

## Conclusion

The case demonstrates that negligence claims require careful factual analysis of foreseeability, breach, causation, and any contributory negligence, highlighting the importance of expert evidence and precise evaluation of duty in workplace injury cases.


Brumder v Motornet Services and Repairs Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 195