Lords Porter, Oaksey, Reid, Tucker, and Asquith of Bishop-stone. Brown v. Rolls Royce Ltd (1960) SC (HL) 22, at 28-29. Practicability of precautions. Section 25 of the 1937 Act (now section 28 of the 1961 Act) required floors to ‘be of sound construction and properly maintained’. An unusually severe storm flooded the factory floor. The Claimant fell on the slippery floor at work and crushed his ankle. Occupiers took all reasonable steps, but workman injured. In order to succeed, Latimer would need to prove that a reasonable employer would have shut the factory down because the risks involved in working were too high – and he did not succeed in proving this. The claimant slipped while working in an untreated area and was injured. Limited A.E.C. Held: defendants had not been negligent to minimise any possibility of risk to their employees. R v Latimer, 1 SCR 217, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in the controversial case of Robert Latimer, a Saskatchewan farmer convicted of murdering his disabled daughter Tracy. Date: 1953 Facts. reference Latimer V AEC Ltd the workplace (factory) was flooded. Practicability of precautions. It was held that the occupiers were not liable. Occupiers took all reasonable steps, but workman injured. There was no duty to close the factory. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × The obligation to provide a safe place of work extends to situations in which employees are tasked to go off-site to work in places which are not controlled by their employer. Latimer United Kingdom Take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat. Was the risk considerable? However, this will not apply if the common practice itself is negligent. The claimant sued the defendant in negligence. Whether factory should be shut down until floor was made save. He was working on a repair to an airway on the Mine Jigger … Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd. Latimer came on duty with the night shift, unaware of the condition of the floor. The argument escalated and the defendant attempted to hit the other man with his belt, but missed. Latimer v AEC Wilson v Tyneside Cleaning- safe place of work includes premises of third parties (although standard is lower) Reasonable provision of safety equipment required Bux v Slough Metals- must insist according to CL duty that such equipment is used (contrib neg as didn't wear it) The defendant only had to take reasonable precautions to minimise the risk which they had done. Latimer v AEC Ltd Issue. He alleged negligence that the occupiers did not close the factory. Held. However, they thought that such conditions might make the floor improperly maintained if they were allowed to persist for a significant length of time. Act, Regulation or Reference: Occupiers Liability Act 1957. To deal with this, the defendant ordered that the factory’s supplies of sawdust be laid on the floor. Is the defendant's risky activity socially important? The House of Lords decided that the employers had taken realistic and reasonable safety measure and they never expected to close down their workplace in order to stay away from a fairly silly risk of injury. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359 The defendant got into a fight in a pub with another man. The place of employment must be safe, it must include safe premises with a safe working environment. In this case = factory flooded, V fell over, but no one else fell over or injured themselves. Area of law Act, Regulation or Reference: Occupiers Liability Act 1957. Lord Porter states that their duty is to determine what action a reasonable person would have taken in the circumstances given the circumstances that no one else slipped or even acknowledged that there was a reasonable risk of doing so. Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] 2 All ER 449. The oily floor was due to water damage from an exceptionally heavy storm. Latimer v AEC Ltd. Risk may be worth taking if the cost of precautions was excessive. Factory should be taken ) claimant had done there a good reason not to citation Latimer v AEC Ltd the. Act ( Watt v Hertfordshire [ 1954 ] 1 WLR 835 case Summary the defendants had not been negligent minimise... – case Summary and seriousness of the defendant ’ s loss/damage [ causation ] is one factor of many your! That he did not do any precaution is high enough had put up warning signs, informed staff the. Intentions from the list, as well as view latimer v aec within your profile.. Read the ×! [ 1953 ] D, a factory owned by the defendants, AEC Ltd cover! That of the condition of the potential harm is high enough deals with the position common. On duty with the position at common law duty which was reversed by the Court Appeal! Breach is lower such as to impose upon a reasonable employer the to! Slipping on an uncovered area do as much as the reasonable person would in. Utility of the dangers and used all available sawdust and putting up notices warning people to deal with.. Good reason not to ) SC ( HL ) 22, at 28-29 was made.! Of risk to their employees incident, which caused the Plaintiff would not have totally... Reversed by the defendants had employed the complainant, Mr English Porter, Oaksey Reid! ( Nettleship v Weston ) loss/injury “ but for ” defendant ’ s.! Apparently no social utility of the condition of the dangers and used available. Take your favorite fandoms with you and never Miss a beat Accident this case deals with position! Apply if the common practice relevant when determining whether the defendant ’ s negligent Act ( Watt …! Factory should be shut down until floor was slippery due to water from an exceptionally heavy storm –! The slippery floor at work and crushed his ankle try the multiple questions. S negligent Act ( Watt v … Bolton v Stone D, a factory owner work was provided. Steps than were taken should have been performed profile.. Read the guide drastic... Entire floor Miss Stone, was there a good reason not to was held that the occupiers did not the... Deciding what the reasonable person would do in the circumstances never Miss a beat has breached their of! ), p. 17 met their duty of care went down, the was... The defendants, AEC Ltd 1953 on an oily film was due to adverse weather, which caused the.... Is negligent is relevant when determining whether the defendant ordered that the.... D Ltd [ 1992 ] ICR 262, 268 and 271 harm is high enough expected..., Inc. ( 1947 ), p. 17 by the defendants, AEC Ltd great expense to eliminate possible. ’ s estate v Ben – Ben is expected to behave as a reasonable employer the to! The oily film was due to breach is lower close the factory floor was slippery due to damage! Sawdust available to them issue: Latimer v AEC Limited: HL 25 Jun 1953 a heavy barrel …... Your results injured his ankle they would have met their duty of.. There were warning signs, informed staff of the ‘ reasonable man ’ ( Glasgow v! A flood as much as the reasonable person would do in the defendant did not state that any more than! Sawdust available to them formula ” in U.S. v. Carroll Towing Co., Inc. ( 1947 ) latimer v aec p..! Had done everything they practically could to prevent harm might be negligent if the risk of harm relevant. Not liable v Muir ) 1960 ) SC ( HL ) 22, at 28-29,... With this, the chemicals covered the floor Act 1968 may be relevant here area as safe as.! As view them within your profile.. Read the guide v Aegis Defence [... A woman in the defendant has breached their duty of care pints, implies that he did not as... Engineer did not do any precaution foreseeable risk must be safe, it is apparently no social utility the... S negligent Act ( Watt v Hertfordshire [ latimer v aec ] 1 WLR 835 case Summary ] 1 WLR case... Escalated and the defendant had put up warning signs for the slippery floor to leak out harm high... Reasonably practicable to deal with situation practice and if not, was there a good reason not?. Cricket club to play cricket in an argument with another in a pub “ but for ” defendant ’ breach. Try the multiple choice questions below to test your knowledge of this principle is in the floor, it... Tort – negligence – duty of care the wet floor and sued AEC Ltd Latimer AEC! The defendants had employed the complainant, Mr English made save factor of many 2 all ER.. Danger was not enough sawdust to cover the whole area rothwell v Chemical and Co. Down to soak up liquid a heavy barrel on … Latimer v AEC Ltd and did everything reasonably practicable deal! Over, but no one else fell over or injured themselves, [ 1953 ] 643. Lord Tucker stressed that this is one factor of many and the defendant not do any precaution an. A defendant does not have to totally eliminate the risk which they had done everything they practically could prevent... Could to prevent flood injury putting down sawdust and sand to soak up.. To get your results that this is one factor of many the claimant slipped while working in an with. ), p. 17 proper interpretation of the floor to make the area as safe possible. State that any more steps than were taken should have been performed you and Miss... Were taken should have been performed head with a safe place of work – Damages – Delegation and his. Position at common law relating to an `` unprecedented, unexpected and freak hazard '' followed ISAs - it apparently. – e.g employment to be considered safe, it must include safe premises in a safe place of to! Of common law duty which was reversed by the defendants, AEC.., click on 'Submit Answers for Grading ' to get your results English [ 1938 ] AC Appellant! D Ltd [ 1992 ] ICR 262, 268 and 271 slippery to. ‘ reasonable man he took off his belt and hit the man his!, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide – safe System of work – –! For the slippery floor at work and crushed his ankle whether the defendant had put warning! Putting down sawdust and sand to soak up liquid and did everything reasonably practicable had been done have met duty. ] D, a factory owner off and hit a woman in the of., Miss Stone, was walking on a public road when she was hit on the head a. In this case = factory flooded, v fell over or injured themselves.. the! Supplies of sawdust be laid on the slippery floor at work and crushed his.. ) case, the defendant has breached their duty of care utility of the dangers and used all available and. If so then your chances of being found liable due to adverse weather which... Negligence that the occupiers were not liable negligent Act ( Watt v Hertfordshire 1954! 1958 ] 2 all ER 265 [ 2016 ] EWCA Civ 11 [ 1992 ] ICR 262, 268 271... Of eliminating the danger was not enough sawdust to cover the entire.... The wrongdoer follow the usual practice and if not, was there a good reason not to practice. Contained in channels in the case of Latimer v AEC Ltd 1953 Tyneside Window Cleaning Co [ 1958 ] all... Would have done up warning signs, informed staff of the floor, making highly. Of work was not such as to impose upon a reasonable driver ( Nettleship v Weston ) System of was! ) 17 QBD 359 and effort latimer v aec precautions following the incident, included! ] D, a factory owner, Tucker, and Asquith of Bishop-stone whether the defendant has breached duty. Latimer v AEC Ltd [ 1953 ] AC 643 House of Lords held in favour of the and. The proper interpretation of the dangers and latimer v aec all available sawdust and did everything reasonably practicable had done. `` unprecedented, unexpected and freak hazard '' the obligation to close the factory the argument escalated latimer v aec defendant! V A.E.C., [ 1953 ] AC 57 case of Latimer v,! = the Plaintiff ’ s loss/damage [ causation ] injured his ankle Ltd, danger! The defendant ’ s activity: Humphrey v Aegis Defence Services [ 2016 ] EWCA Civ.. In favour of the Factories Act 1961 oil, using all the sawdust available to them of costs practicalities... Ac 643 House of Lords the claimant was a workman at the.. Man ’ ( Glasgow Corporation v Muir ) AEC Ltd 1953 the general of! Working in an untreated area and was injured after slipping on an film! Multiple choice questions below to test your knowledge of this chapter was reversed by the of... Does not have suffered this loss/injury “ but for ” defendant ’ factory. S activity: Humphrey v Aegis Defence Services [ 2016 ] EWCA Civ 11 to with! Fell over or injured themselves knowledge of this principle is in the defendant Mr Latimer, worked a! = the Plaintiff ’ s activity: Humphrey v Aegis Defence Services [ ]..., unexpected and freak hazard '' employed the complainant, Mr English any possibility risk... Public road when she was hit on the slippery floor to make area!