A finding that equipment or a method was objectively unfit for purpose, based on expert evidence obtained after the event, does not establish breach of duty where the use of that equipment or method was common industry practice and the defendants did not possess, and were not required to possess, the expert knowledge revealing the inadequacy. Compliance with common industry practice is powerful evidence that the defendant did not act negligently, and the evidentiary presumption should be displaced only where there is a persuasive reason for concluding the common practice fell short of reasonable care. Factual causation under the 'but for' test cannot be established where the plaintiff fails to prove the force actually applied, and it remains equally possible that the harm would have occurred regardless of the precaution allegedly required.
The full text is available to signed-in members.