You are in: Home Page | About Thompsons | Publications | Law Bulletins | March 2006

Law Bulletin - March 2006

A touch of frost (and wind and rain)

The claimant was a location manager on a programme directed by David Jason. The programme had scenes in the Lake District. On arriving at the base camp there had been widespread destruction to the set caused by high winds, which were still blowing. This was the last day in this location, and the management thought it vital to complete the shoot.

Mr Heaton (a witness for the claimant) attended that meeting and advised that it was too dangerous to film. He recommended they wait to see if the wind abated. Mr Heaton was, however, overruled and the decision was taken to film, even though the wind was causing “mini tidal waves” on the lake.

Due to the bad weather, it was not deemed safe to film at the chosen location. The defendant’s employees dictated that the second filming unit were to be dispatched up to Honister Pass, which looked similar. The claimant and many others expressed their concerns, in respect of the wind and the risk to health and safety, to senior members of the staff.

A production manager drove up the pass and decided that the party would have to vacate the vehicle and “go through the motions” to satisfy the producer that it was unsafe. The party left the vehicle and confirmed their views that it was unsafe due to the wind, which was sufficient to require them to crouch down.

On returning to the vehicle a gust of wind caught all four of them causing all to fall over. The claimant, however, being closer to the road side, was blown from the road and landed in a rocky beck/gully to the side, causing injuries including a broken knee cap and elbow.

The Judge held that there was a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury and in particular that the defendant should have perceived the risk in that they were aware of the problems with the wind at the lower/less exposed base camp location and it was common sense that it would be more windy up the hill side.

The Judge rejected the possibility of the claimant being contributorily negligent as he had made his concerns known to his superiors on several occasions. However, these fell on “deaf ears”. In the Judge’s view there was nothing more that Mr Hordley could have done short of walking off set and refusing to work. The Judge was firmly of the view that the defendants had put the claimant in the way of harm and he had no choice or way of avoiding it.

The claimant was therefore successful and recovered the agreed figure for compensation totalling £37,007.95 (PSLA £11,000 )

The defendant applied for leave to appeal on the grounds of:

• the factual speed of the wind
• legal basis/law in respect of foreseeability of risk
• Public Policy grounds.

The defendant’s application was refused.

The defendants solely relied on the evidence of Mr Crabb (meteorologist) in respect of wind speed however he was only able to indicate the speeds at 3 surrounding wind stations and not therefore give an indication of the wind speeds at the accident location.

Christopher Hordley -v- Yorkshire TV (now Granada). 24-26 January 2006, Leeds County Court.