A contractor won an Appeals Court decision yesterday absolving him of any liability for a work-related accident which crippled one of his workers a decade ago.

Contractor Headley Stephenson appealed a 2001 Supreme Court decision which assigned him 35 percent responsibility for a 1992 accident in which carpenter Rennard Russell lost the use of both legs.

Mr. Russell, who was employed by Mr. Stephenson at the time, was crossing a rooftop gap between his home and his work site at the Flying Chef on Court Street on June 24, 1992 when he slipped from a pipe, plummeted 19 feet to the ground and was permanently disabled.

He was fetching tools from his residence to complete a minor job Mr. Stephenson had asked him to do at the restaurant, which was then under the last stages of construction, when the crippling accident occurred.

Mr. Meerabux ruled last year that his employer was partially responsible for the accident as Mr. Stephenson had been aware his workers were using the dangerous shortcut between the worksite and Mr. Russell's neighbouring home for many months.

His ruling split liability for the accident between Mr. Russell (65 percent) and Mr. Stephenson (35 percent) but no monetary damages had yet been attached to the Supreme Court decision.

Yesterday, however, the Court of Appeals of president James Astwood, Sir Derek Cons and Mr. Justice Philip Clough said Mr. Meerabux's judgment could not be supported in light of the evidence.

Mr. Russell's attorney, Juliana Jack, had argued the Flying Chef was a construction site at the time of the accident and should have been held to the safety regulations for such and that Mr. Stephenson knew of, and tacitly approved of, his workers using shortcut despite its dangers.

Mr. Stephenson's attorney Jeffrey Elkinson argued the site was no longer under construction as the premises had been turned over to the restaurant some 11 days before the accident.

Mr. Elkinson said Mr. Russell had been completing only a minor job under no particular time constraints on the day of the fall, and might have used a safe route between the Flying Chef and his home.

The judges agreed yesterday that Mr. Russell took the shortcut of his own accord rather than using the safe route, which was readily available to him.

"In our opinion, the evidence was clear that the appellant was not in breach of his duty to provide a safe access to the Flying Chef premises. The Flying Chef was a restaurant and the evidence is that it had a proper and safe entrance," their judgment said.

"The evidence is clear that the respondent himself used the entrance on June 24, 1992 and the judge found he was 'foolhardy' to go across the wall."