CPA Conditions – Is the Jigsaw finally complete ?

• Contractors Plant Hire Asso (CPA) – 60 years & some• Normal rules of contract apply – Course of Dealing• Is the plant on hire – i.e. being erected or on a public road.

• Clause 5 – Plant in Good Condition.• Clause 8 – Competent Driver/Operator.

• Competent is different from Negligent. Competent is defined as “having sufficient skill, knowledge, etc, etc; Negligent is defined as “lacking attention, care or concern; neglectful”.

• Clause 13 – Allocation of Liability.

CPA Conditions – Is the Jigsaw finally complete ?

• Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 Indemnity or Exclusion Clause ?

• Phillips v Hyland [1987] Indemnity Clause not adequately communicated

• McConkey v Amec, 15/2/90, CA. Driver not trained to use Wylie safe load indicator. Breach of Clause 8 negates application of Clause 13.

• Jose v MacSalvors & Brush Transformers, 15/12/09, CA.

IP

D1 D2

CPA Conditions – Is the Jigsaw finally complete ?

•Jose v MacSalvors & Brush Transformers, 15/12/09, CA.

“I was on hire to WPD at Newton Abbott sub-station driving a Grove GMK 4075 80 tonne capacity crane No. Reg. no. WK02 UEG. I climbed onto the tool box at the rear of the superstructure cab to check the hoist rope and adjust the mirror, and to clean some footprints off the top of the box. When I had finished, I stepped backwards off the tool box thinking I had left the crane slewed in line with the chassis and that the deck would be below me. Unfortunately, this was not the case and I stepped back into nothing and I fell to the ground thereby sustaining my injuries.”

CPA Conditions – Is the Jigsaw finally complete ?

• Arthur White v Tarmac [1967] – Why can’t the EL duties be transferred taking into account the extent of control ?

IP can sue Hirer IP can sue Owner Indemnity for Owner from Hirer

Driver injures third party through Negligence

Yes Yes YesIncompetent Driver injures third party through Negligence

Yes Yes NoDriver Injured through no fault of Hirer.

No Yes NoCrane Off Hire No Yes No