I was asked, in all seriousness, if I thought the person I will call J in this situation has any liability!

Scenario

An employer in the motor vehicle repair trade allows a 71-year old retired man (IP) to work in his premises without pay as an odd job man “for something to do”. The man is happy to do this and is not asking for pay.

The employer has a customer who owns a demolition business and he has won a contract to strip and demolish a factory. The Garage owner sees an opportunity to obtain some materials from the redundant factory and asks if he can remove various fittings from the main building and some metal roof sheets from a lean to building on the site. The demolition contractor agrees to allow him to do this and to remove the materials gratis.

When the garage owner (J) tells the IP (the 71-year old) where he is going he asks to accompany him to help. On arrival at the redundant factory J gives the IP a battery operated drill to remove bolts and sets him to work stripping roof sheets from the lean to building before going off to another part of the building. His intention is that the IP will only remove the lower sheets that can be accessed without going on to the roof.

When he returns to see how the IP is getting on he finds him on the roof close to a plastic roof light. The IP says he has got on the roof to get the higher sheets as they are in better condition. J warns him about the roof light and takes the drill away from him but does not stop him from working on the roof. J then goes back to the place where he was working.
Sometime later another person on the site comes to J to tell him that the IP is missing. They conduct a search and find him inside the building below the broken roof light. He suffered head injuries and a fractured shoulder blade and ribs. He has also had several seizures since the accident. J however suspects the seizures are due to a pre-existing medical condition because the IP has been known to have “blackouts” for a number of years.

The accident is being investigated by the HSE and the Police.

My analysis of this situation is as follows:
1. The IP is J’s employee in spite of the fact that he is not remunerated.
2. He should not have allowed an elderly man with a history of “blackouts” to work with him.
3. J did not carry out a risk assessment and did not have a safe system of work
4. J did not prevent the unsafe method of work when he could have done.
5. J is therefore liable to prosecution for a breach of section 2(1) of HASAW Act, the Management Regs and the Work at Height Regs.
6. The IP can sue and would be likely to win substantial damages.
7. The demolition contractor is also liable to prosecution (the judgement in R v Associated Octel is apposite) under section 3(1) of HASAW Act and the Construction Design and Management Regs. for failing to ensure the competence of a sub-contractor

How do you read it?