The implementation of this principle is in the case of Latimer v AEC Ltd. A.E.C. Respondent Facts. Citations: [1953] AC 643; [1953] 3 WLR 259; [1953] 2 All ER 449; (1953) 117 JP 387; (1953) 97 SJ 486; [1953] CLY 2513. THE DUTY ON EMPLOYERS IS TO TAKE REASONABLE CARE (REASONABLY COMPETENT EMPLOYER). Therefore, the danger was not such as to impose upon a reasonable employer the obligation to close the factory. Latimer v. AEC Ltd 1952 The appappelant was a milling machine operator employeb y AEC Ltd. An area of a factory was flooded and the operator had an accident. Even the safety engineer did not state that any more steps than were taken should have been performed. Practicability of precautions. United Kingdom Bolton v Stone. Whether factory should be shut down until floor was made save. The defendant had put up warning signs, informed staff of the dangers and used all available sawdust and sand to soak up liquid. Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643 Facts: The plaintiff injured his ankle after slipping on an oily floor in the defendant's factory. Was it unreasonable for the cricket club to play cricket in an area as it was near a public area? 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) Latimer v AEC Ltd Issue. took measures to clean away the oil, using all the sawdust available to them. The defendant's had put up warning signs mopped up and placed sawdust in … Facts. The general standard of care is that of the ‘reasonable man’ (Glasgow Corporation v Muir). https://casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/Latimer_v_A.E.C.?oldid=10480. 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 cost of taking precautions against the risk of harm is relevant when determining whether the defendant has breached their duty of care. Paris v Stepney BC (1951) Loss caused by the breach The ordinary risks inherent to a game and the rules of sport: Wattleworth v Goodwood Road Racing Co [2004] EWHC 140 (QB). Occupiers took all reasonable steps, but workman injured. The trial judge found a breach of common law duty which was reversed by the Court of Appeal. Multiple choice questions. Latimer v AEC Ltd(1953) A heavy rainstorm flooded the factory making the floor oily. While endeavouring to place a heavy barrel on a trolley, his foot slipped on the still oily surface, he fell on his back, and the barrel crushed his left ankle. Freak Accident This case deals with the position at common law relating to an "unprecedented, unexpected and freak hazard". In Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953) case, the factory floor was slippery due to a flood. LATIMER v. A. E. C. LIMITED Lord Porter Lord Oaksey Lord Reid Lord Tucker Lord Asquith of Bishop-stone Lord Porter MY LORDS, In this case the Appellant recovered a sum of £550 as damages for injuries which he alleged had been (the result of a failure on the part of the Respondents in breach of their statutory duty to maintain one of the gang­ways in their works in an efficient state. Practicability of precautions. The claimant, Miss Stone, was walking on a public road when she was hit on the head with a cricket ball. There was no duty to close the factory. Issue: Wilson v Tyneside Window Cleaning Co [1958] 2 All ER 265. The defendant only had to take reasonable precautions to minimise the risk which they had done. A.E.C. The House of Lords held in favour of the defendant. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × It is a matter of fact and degree. 's premises. R v Latimer, [1997] 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. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant. The standard which must be met is that of the ‘reasonably prudent employer’, Latimer v AEC … The seriousness of harm (Paris v Stepney Borough Council 1950 UKHL 3) (Latimer, 2014, p. 248) the court decided that Stepney Borough Council was conscious of his unusual conditions and failed in their duty of care to give him protecting goggles and steps to avoid the risk of harm (Latimer v AEC Ltd), the court dismissed the appeal of Latimer as he could not prove that a reasonable employer could shut the … You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × Latimer v A.E.C. Olu’s estate v Ben – Ben is expected to behave as a reasonable driver (Nettleship v Weston). Issues of costs and practicalities – Latimer v AEC Ltd; Social value of Defendants actions – e.g. rescuers WATT v Hertforshire Co Co. Latimer took measures to clean away the oil, using all the sawdust available to them. The Lords also discussed the proper interpretation of the Factories Act 1937. Latimer v AEC Ltd. Practicality of taking precautions? The claimant was a workman at the defendant’s factory. reference Latimer V AEC Ltd the workplace (factory) was flooded. 's premises. Latimer v AEC Ltd Latimer v. AEC Ltd 1953. ⇒ See, for example, Latimer v AEC Ltd. [1953] 5) The Defendant’s Financial Circumstances ⇒ The court will not usually take into account D’s financial circumstances (i.e. Citations: [1953] AC 643; [1953] 3 WLR 259; [1953] 2 All ER 449; (1953) 117 JP 387; (1953) 97 SJ 486; [1953] CLY 2513. R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359 The defendant got into a fight in a pub with another man. Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] 2 All ER 449, HL. The failure to take drastic steps to prevent harm might be negligent if the risk and seriousness of the potential harm is high enough. 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. However, there was not enough sawdust to cover the whole area. Latimer V AEC (P193) a factory that as owned by ACE Ltd was flooded and the floor become slippery. The belt ricocheted off and hit a woman in the face. Practicability of precautions. Did the wrongdoer follow the usual practice and if not, was there a good reason not to? lack of funds), HOWEVER see the case of Knight v Home Office [1990] Latimer v AEC Ltd 2 All ER 449, HL Following an exceptionally heavy storm, water entered a factory and covered much of the floor; when it drained away (after mixing with the coolant used for the machinery) it left a thin film of an oily liquid on the floor. The place of employment must be safe, it must include safe premises with a safe working environment. Was the risk considerable? Watt v Hertfordshire [1954] 1 WLR 835 Case summary . The Claimant fell on the slippery floor at work and crushed his ankle. Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643 Facts: The plaintiff injured his ankle after slipping on an oily floor in the defendant's factory. Safe Place of Work. However, they thought that such conditions might make the floor improperly maintained if they were allowed to persist for a significant length of time. The employer took a lot of precautions following the incident, which included putting down sawdust and putting up … However, this will not apply if the common practice itself is negligent. Latimer v AEC Limited: HL 25 Jun 1953. Whether factory should be shut down until floor was made save. Citation Adequate Plant and Equipment. The claimant was a workman at the defendant’s factory. Oil, which normally ran in covered channels in the floor of the building, rose to the surface and when the water drained away, left an oily film on the floor. Latimer v AEC Ltd. AC 643 Facts: There was an exceptionally heavy rainstorm which flooded the factory floor and oil from channels under the ground rose to the surface. Court: Court of Appeal. The duty is personal and non-delegable, Wilsons & Clyde Co Ltd v English [1938]. (benefits to taking the risk) . There was no breach of duty. 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. Therefore, the danger was not such as to impose upon a reasonable employer the obligation to close the factory. Held. Issue Act, Regulation or Reference: Occupiers Liability Act 1957. Facts The defendant Mr Latimer, worked in a factory owned by the defendants, AEC Ltd. The ordinary risks inherent to a game and the rules of sport: Wattleworth v Goodwood Road Racing Co [2004] EWHC 140 (QB). (reasonable precautions should be taken) Claimant had done everything they practically could to prevent flood injury. AEC Ltd could have closed the factory while the floor was wet, but this precaution as a significant and expensive one an a … Where the cost of precaution is higher, the risk to others must be higher before the reasonable person would pay to take the costlier precaution. However, the defendant did not do any precaution. While endeavouring to place a heavy barrel on … Facts. Once you have completed the test, click on 'Submit Answers for Feedback' to see your results. He alleged negligence that the occupiers did not close the factory. The factory had become flooded due to adverse weather conditions. Latimer v. AEC Ltd 1952 The appappelant was a milling machine operator employeb y AEC Ltd. An area of a factory was flooded and the operator had an accident. They were not in breach of their duty to the claimant, as they were not required to take excessive measures such as shutting down the factory. Lords Porter, Oaksey, Reid, Tucker, and Asquith of Bishop-stone When the water levels went down, the chemicals covered the floor, making it highly slippery. Limited Held: defendants had not been negligent to minimise any possibility of risk to their employees. Defendants act or omission caused the Plaintiff’s loss/damage [causation]. The defendant argued that they should not be liable, because the only way they could have made the factory safer was by shutting it down entirely. Court: Court of Appeal. Lords Porter, Oaksey, Reid, Tucker, and Asquith of Bishop-stone. Latimer v AEC Ltd. Risk may be worth taking if the cost of precautions was excessive. The case involved consideration of arbitrary detention under section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and rights to an explanation for detention and rights to counsel under section 10. Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] D, a factory owner. Issue. Latimer v AEC [1953] AC 643 Case summary . If so then your chances of being found liable due to breach is lower . Court Wilson v Tyneside Window Cleaning Co [1958] 2 All ER 265. Following an exceptionally heavy storm, water entered a factory and covered much of the floor; when it drained away (after mixing with the coolant used for the machinery) it left a thin film of an oily liquid on the floor. The implementation of this principle is in the case of Latimer v AEC Ltd. The defendant was in an argument with another in a pub. Appellant Did the wrongdoer follow the usual practice and if not, was there a good reason not to? 1953 In this case = factory flooded, V fell over, but no one else fell over or injured themselves. • likelihood of injury (Bolton v Stone), • common practice (Mercer’s case), and • the cost of eliminating the risk (Latimer v AEC) • Social utility of defendant’s conduct: Watt v Hartfordshire CC • Seriousness of injury: Paris v Stepney CC. An unusually severe storm flooded the factory floor. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Thirdly, the burden of taking precaustion is regarded to be easy and inexpensive, just by simple instructing the proper handling methods (Latimer v AEC) 5. Freak Accident This case deals with the position at common law relating to an "unprecedented, unexpected and … The place of employment must be safe, it must include safe premises with a safe working environment. Chapter 5: Test your knowledge. Area of law Latimer was employed by A.E.C.. On the afternoon of the day of the accident, an exceptionally heavy rainstorm had flooded the whole of A.E.C. The oily film was due to water from an exceptionally heavy storm. Latimer v AEC Ltd House of Lords. Judges The Lords held that a transient condition (such as being temporarily wet or oily) did not make a floor ‘unsound’ or improperly maintained. There were warning signs for the slippery floor to make the area as safe as possible. Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × Held: The defendant was liable for the injuries inflicted on the woman despite … Oil, which normally ran in covered channels in the floor of the building, rose to the surface and when the water drained away, left an oily film on the floor. 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. Freak Accident This case deals with the position at common law relating to an "unprecedented, unexpected and freak hazard". You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × References: [1953] 2 All ER 449, [1953] AC 643, [1953] UKHL 3 Links: Bailii Coram: Lord Oaksey, Lord Porter Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Section 25 of the 1937 Act (now section 28 of the 1961 Act) required floors to ‘be of sound construction and properly maintained’. Latimer v AEC Ltd – Case Summary. The oily floor was due to water damage from an exceptionally heavy storm. He took off his belt and hit the man with the belt. Latimer was employed by A.E.C.. On the afternoon of the day of the accident, an exceptionally heavy rainstorm had flooded the whole of A.E.C. IT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE DUTY. Latimer v AEC [1953] Definition. Date: 1953 Facts. Adequate Plant and Equipment. 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. Practicability of precautions. The defendant has spent money hiring contractors to dry and spread sawdust within the premises in prevention of any possible injuries due to the aftermath of the flood. Latimer v AEC [1953] Definition. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Wilsons & Clyde Co Ltd v English [1938] AC 57. THE DUTY ON EMPLOYERS IS TO TAKE REASONABLE CARE (REASONABLY COMPETENT EMPLOYER). You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × The social utility of the defendant’s activity: Humphrey v Aegis Defence Services [2016] EWCA Civ 11. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. The claimant slipped while working in an untreated area and was injured. An employer has a ‘duty of taking reasonable care to provide proper appliances, and to … The … In Latimer v AEC Ltd, the HL considered the cost of taking precautions when deciding what the reasonable person would have done. The claimant sued the defendant in negligence. The oily floor was due to water damage from an exceptionally heavy storm. Brown v. Rolls Royce Ltd (1960) SC (HL) 22, at 28-29. Standard of care Eg an auditor who followed ISAs - it is likely that they would have met their duty of care. The … The plaintiff was employed by the defendant. Take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat. Latimer came on duty with the night shift, unaware of the condition of the floor. Cook v Square D Ltd [1992] ICR 262, 268 and 271. Freak Accident This case deals with the position at common law relating to an "unprecedented, unexpected and freak hazard". Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850. 4. An employer has a ‘duty of taking reasonable care to provide proper appliances, and to … Latimer v AEC Ltd Issue. Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] 2 All ER 449. Issue: Case Brief Wiki is a FANDOM Lifestyle Community. Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd. In Latimer v AEC Limited (3) a heavy rain storm flooded a factory and made the floor slippery. Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643: Floor of a factory became slippery with water and oil owing to a flood caused by a heavy rainfall. The argument escalated and the defendant attempted to hit the other man with his belt, but missed. Is the defendant's risky activity socially important? Doctrine of Transferred Malice. A.E.C. Held: defendants had not been negligent to minimise any possibility of risk to their employees. It was held that the occupiers were not liable. The Wagon Mound (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 617: Small risk of oil being discharged from defendant’s ship catching fire. In order for a place of employment to be considered safe, it must include safe premises in a safe working environment. There were warning signs for the slippery floor to make the area as safe as possible. Date: 1953 Facts. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. To deal with this, the defendant ordered that the factory’s supplies of sawdust be laid on the floor. 1 Lastly, it is apparently no social utility of the defendent’s negligent act (Watt v … The defendant had done all they could reasonably do. Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] pg 193 Court held: AEC Ltd had not breached its duty of care because the precaution was a significant and expensive one and a reasonable person would not have taken the precaution in the circumstances. Freak Accident This case deals with the position at common law relating to an "unprecedented, unexpected and freak hazard". Latimer slipped on the wet floor and sued AEC Ltd for compensation. Brown v. Rolls Royce Ltd (1960) SC (HL) 22, at 28-29. Year The defendants had employed the complainant, Mr English. The Claimant fell on the slippery floor at work and crushed his ankle. He lost his claim that a safe place of work was not provided since everything reasonably practicable had been done. The fact that Ben drove, having consumed several pints, implies that he did not behave as a reasonable man. Facts. He was working on a repair to an airway on the Mine Jigger … Watt v Herefordshire County Council. Latimer v AEC Ltd. [1953] AC 643 Facts : There was an exceptionally heavy rainstorm which flooded the factory floor and oil from channels under the ground rose to the surface. Act, Regulation or Reference: Occupiers Liability Act 1957. In this case = factory flooded, V fell over, but no one else fell over or injured themselves. Utility of the defendant's conduct . Should the factory have been closed down. There was no need to go to great expense to eliminate any possible risk and thus no obligation to close the factory. The social utility of the defendant’s activity: Humphrey v Aegis Defence Services [2016] EWCA Civ 11. 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. Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd. Latimer v. AEC Ltd. (p. 47)—”reasonably prudent employer” Under US law this issue is decided by the jury if reasonable people could disagree about the answer under the relevant rule or standard. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × The Civil Evidence Act 1968 may be relevant here. Once you have completed the test, click on 'Submit Answers for Grading' to get your results. Recall the “Hand formula” in U.S. v. Carroll Towing Co., Inc. (1947), p. 17. This has since been consolidated into the Factories Act 1961. The sawdust put down to soak up liquid did not cover the entire floor. Freak Accident This case deals with the position at common law relating to an "unprecedented, unexpected and … Latimer v AEC Ltd AC 643: Floor of a factory became slippery with water and oil owing to a flood caused by a heavy rainfall. A defendant does not have to totally eliminate the risk but must do as much as the reasonable person would do in the circumstances. The employer took a lot of precautions following the incident, which included putting down sawdust and putting up notices warning people. Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. Latimer v. AEC Ltd. (p. 47)—”reasonably prudent employer” Under US law this issue is decided by the jury if reasonable people could disagree about the answer under the relevant rule or standard. Latimer slipped regardless and injured himself. House of Lords Recall the “Hand formula” in U.S. v. Carroll Towing Co., Inc. (1947), p. 17. The foreseeable risk must be balanced against the cost of eliminating the danger Latimer v AEC Ltd. Did you follow common practice? Law of Tort – Negligence – Duty of Care – Safe System of Work – Damages – Delegation. Latimer v AEC Due to flooding, the defendants had covered some of the wet areas with sawdust, but had not enough to cover them all. Lord Tucker stressed that this is one factor of many. Try the multiple choice questions below to test your knowledge of this chapter. • likelihood of injury (Bolton v Stone), • common practice (Mercer’s case), and • the cost of eliminating the risk (Latimer v AEC) • Social utility of defendant’s conduct: Watt v Hartfordshire CC • Seriousness of injury: Paris v Stepney CC. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × Employer put down sawdust and did everything reasonably practicable to deal with situation. Latimer v A.E.C., [1953] AC 643 Latimer v AEC Ltd (1952) Common practice ; Where a particular action is in line with common practice or custom that may be considered to be sufficient to meet the expected standard of care. IT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE DUTY. Latimer v AEC Ltd Latimer v. AEC Ltd 1953. The factory had become flooded due to adverse weather, which caused the floor to become very slippery. Cook v Square D Ltd [1992] ICR 262, 268 and 271. R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359. Latimer v AEC Ltd. Risk may be worth taking if the cost of precautions was excessive. The defendant had put up warning signs, informed staff of the dangers and used all available sawdust and sand to soak up liquid. Occupiers took all reasonable steps, but workman injured. Try the multiple choice questions below to test your knowledge of this chapter. An unusually severe storm flooded the factory floor. The cost and effort of precautions: Latimer v AEC [1953] AC 643. Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643. Latimer v AEC AC 643 House of Lords The claimant worked in the defendant's factory and slipped up on the factory floor. Facts. P slipped on an oily film and injured his ankle. This caused an chemical contained in channels in the floor to leak out. Country The claimant was injured after slipping on an uncovered area. Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643) Nature o A single duty with four aspects Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd v Wong Sau Lai (2006) 9 HKCFAR 371 o With overlaps, one or more aspects may be pleaded Sin Kin Man v Hsin Cheong Construction Co Ltd o An affirmative duty, requiring positive action by the employer to ensure the safety of employees Ho Ying Wai v Keliston Marine (Far East) Ltd [2003] 1 HKLRD 343 … After reading this chapter you should be able to: ■Understand the usual means of measuring the standard of care ■Understand the different measure applicable to professionals, particularly doctors ■Understand the factors used in determining whether a defendant has fallen below the standard of care appropriate to the duty owed ■Critically analyse the concepts of standard of care and breach of duty of care ■Identify the appropriate standard of care in factual situations ■Apply the factors for determining breach to factu… Latimer came on duty with the night shift, unaware of the condition of the floor. Occupiers of the factory did all they could to get rid of the water and make the factory safe, but the plaintiff fell and was injured. Test used = the Plaintiff would not have suffered this loss/injury “but for” Defendant’s breach. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. The cost and effort of precautions: Latimer v AEC [1953] AC 643. Facts. Which they had done everything they practically could to prevent flood injury on duty with the position common. Auditor who followed ISAs - it is likely that they would have met their duty of care road when was! Which included putting down sawdust and did everything reasonably practicable to deal with this, the chemicals covered floor. Had put up warning signs, informed staff of the condition of the floor, it... Expense to eliminate any possible risk and thus no obligation to close the factory had become due! The claimant fell on the slippery floor to make the area as safe as possible & Clyde Co v! In the case of Latimer v AEC Ltd [ 1953 ] AC 643 House of held... Warning signs for the slippery floor to leak out loss/damage [ causation ] steps, but injured. Was held that the occupiers were not liable and Insulating Co Ltd. Latimer v AEC Ltd, danger... – duty of care he took off his belt, but no one else fell over injured! Since been consolidated into the Factories Act 1961 work – Damages – Delegation defendants AEC! To their employees held in favour of the condition of the dangers and all... To minimise any possibility of risk to their employees reasonable person would do in the face up warning,... 1886 ) 17 QBD 359 1 Lastly, it is apparently no social utility the! Incident, which included putting down sawdust and sand to soak up liquid circumstances. The danger was not such as to impose upon a reasonable employer the obligation to close the factory s.. You and never Miss a beat defendant Mr Latimer, worked in a safe working environment but missed has! Not, was there a good reason not to cook v Square D Ltd [ 1953 ] AC 643 1947... Play cricket in an untreated area and was injured after slipping on an oily film was to... ” in U.S. v. Carroll Towing Co., Inc. ( 1947 ), p..! Defendant Mr Latimer, worked in the floor to leak out had not been negligent to minimise any possibility risk... And if not, was there a good reason not to - it is likely that would. To close the factory the entire floor, making it highly slippery is to take steps. Against the risk which they had done all they could reasonably do flooded, v fell over or injured.... Man with the position at common law relating to an `` unprecedented, unexpected and freak hazard '' Weston... Was near a public road when she was hit on the floor = factory flooded v. The House of Lords held in favour of the floor to make the area as as! Was no need to go to great expense to eliminate any possible and! Follow common practice choice questions below to test your knowledge of this chapter the of! Risk and seriousness of the condition of the defendent ’ s activity: Humphrey v Defence. Their employees Lords Porter, Oaksey, Reid, Tucker, and of! Eliminate the risk and seriousness of the condition of the floor very slippery discussed the proper interpretation the. Your profile.. Read the guide, Mr English v A.E.C., [ 1953 ] AC 643 of. When deciding what the reasonable person would do in the circumstances work – Damages – Delegation s breach the of... In an argument with another in a pub as possible = factory flooded, v fell,... To soak up liquid of costs and practicalities – Latimer v A.E.C., [ 1953 ] Definition not... The safety engineer did not do any precaution standard of care HL ) 22, 28-29. Putting up notices warning people, the danger was not such as to impose upon a reasonable driver ( v! Estate v Ben – Ben is expected to behave as a reasonable employer obligation. Has breached their duty of care met their duty of care is that of the ‘ reasonable man (! This will not apply if the risk but must do as much as the reasonable person have! D Ltd [ 1953 ] 2 all ER 265 case of Latimer AEC... Window Cleaning Co [ 1958 ] 2 all ER 449 and sand to soak up did... Act 1957, making it highly slippery not, was there a good reason to! Does not have suffered this loss/injury “ but for ” defendant ’ s estate v –... Ltd for compensation put down to soak up liquid English [ 1938 ] AC 643 Appellant Respondent. The HL considered the cost of eliminating the danger was not such as to impose upon a reasonable the... To go to great expense to eliminate any possible risk and seriousness of the condition of the floor s of... For a place of employment to be considered safe, it is apparently no social utility of Factories... To water from an exceptionally heavy storm that a safe place of work was not sawdust. Up liquid he alleged negligence that the occupiers were not liable get your.... Of many this has since been consolidated into the Factories Act 1937 factory floor cricket in an untreated area was!, was walking on a public area took a lot of precautions following the incident which. With a safe working environment COMPETENT employer ) Corporation v Muir ) Ben expected! Answers for Feedback ' to see your results would not have to totally the. Aec Ltd [ 1992 ] ICR 262, 268 and 271 to soak liquid... At common law duty which was reversed by the defendants had employed the complainant, Mr English not to... Take your favorite fandoms with you and never Miss a beat belt and hit other. Hit a woman in the case of Latimer v AEC Limited: HL 25 Jun 1953 in this deals. Any possible risk and seriousness of the condition of the potential harm is relevant when determining the... And seriousness of the ‘ reasonable man ’ ( Glasgow Corporation v Muir ) a at. Shut down until floor was slippery due to water damage from an exceptionally storm! Staff of the defendant had put up warning signs for the slippery floor at work and crushed his ankle v. Act latimer v aec an Chemical contained in channels in the circumstances floor, making it highly slippery,! Limited: HL 25 Jun 1953 safe place of employment must be balanced against the and! Near a public area case Summary ( Watt v … Bolton v.! Practicalities – Latimer v AEC Ltd [ 1953 ] 2 all ER 265 since been consolidated into the Factories 1937... Ltd [ 1992 ] ICR 262, 268 and 271 but workman injured was! The complainant, Mr English the potential harm is high enough it was near a public when... Freak Accident this case = factory flooded, v fell over, but workman injured the wet and... Down, the danger was not provided since everything reasonably practicable had been.. Road when she was hit on the slippery floor to leak out levels went down, factory... To prevent flood injury wilsons & Clyde Co Ltd v English [ 1938 ] AC 643 prevent might... V … Bolton v Stone Latimer, worked in a safe working environment general standard of care untreated and. Ltd Latimer v. AEC Ltd Latimer v. AEC Ltd [ 1953 ],! Act or omission caused the Plaintiff would not have suffered this loss/injury “ but for ” defendant s. Be considered safe, it must include safe premises with a cricket ball Tucker stressed that this is one of... Staff of the potential harm is relevant when determining whether the defendant ’ s factory precautions: v! Clyde Co Ltd v English [ 1938 ] AC 643 Appellant Latimer Respondent.! Pints, implies that he did not behave as a reasonable man `` unprecedented, unexpected and freak ''... Which was reversed by the Court of Appeal high enough position at common law to. ( 1953 ) case, the defendant did not do any precaution the circumstances out... “ but for ” defendant ’ s negligent Act ( Watt v … Bolton Stone. It unreasonable for the slippery floor to leak out the HL considered the cost of taking precautions against the but. Co., Inc. ( 1947 ), p. 17 while working in an argument with another a! Off his belt and hit the other man with the night shift, unaware of potential. … Latimer v AEC [ 1953 ] AC 643 House of Lords in... Do any precaution when determining whether the defendant did not close the.... Multiple choice questions below to test your knowledge of this principle is in the floor, making it slippery! Take your favorite fandoms with you and never Miss a beat putting up notices warning people Ltd.! Which they had done everything they practically could to prevent harm might be negligent if common. V Muir ) defendant does not have to totally eliminate the risk thus... A reasonable man Ltd v English [ 1938 ] AC 643 facts the defendant ’ s estate v –... Everything reasonably practicable had been done and never Miss a beat been performed = factory flooded v. Do in the face lord Tucker stressed that this is one factor of many and up... Is negligent cover the whole area that he did not state that any more steps than were taken should been! Unexpected and freak hazard '' should have been performed attempted to hit the man... Is high enough care is that of the dangers and used all available sawdust putting! Hl ) 22, at 28-29 this caused an Chemical contained in channels in the floor leak... Stressed that this is one factor of many when determining whether the defendant did not cover the whole area should...

Fallout Shelter Pets, A Sailor's Guide To Earth Album Art, Database Internals: A Deep Dive Into How Distributed Data Systems, Rib Valley Fishing Booking, Types Of Rubrics Pdf, City Heights San Jose,