Haseldine v CA Daw & Son Ltd
An occupier who entrusts technical work to an apparently competent independent contractor is not liable for injury caused by the contractor's negligence.
Facts
Mr Haseldine was injured when a lift in a block of flats fell to the bottom of its shaft, because of the negligence of the specialist lift engineers who had repaired it shortly before. The occupier of the flats had employed the engineers, who were apparently competent. Mr Haseldine sued the occupier and the engineers.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the occupier was not liable, because it had employed apparently competent specialist contractors to repair the lift, and it could not be expected to check the technical work itself. The engineers were liable in negligence. The principle is now in section 2(4)(b) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, under which an occupier is not liable for faulty work by an independent contractor if he acted reasonably in entrusting the work to the contractor and took reasonable steps to satisfy himself that the contractor was competent and the work was properly done.
Related cases on occupiers' liability
- British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877
- Bunker v Charles Brand & Son Ltd [1969] 2 QB 480
- Cole v Davis-Gilbert [2007] EWCA Civ 396
- Darby v National Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 189
- Edwards v Railway Executive [1952] AC 737
- Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] 1 AC 44
- Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust [2006] EWCA Civ 39, [2006] 1 WLR 953
- Laverton v Kiapasha [2002] EWCA Civ 1656
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
