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

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal