Latimer v AEC Ltd
An employer is not negligent for failing to take precautions that would be out of proportion to the risk, such as closing down a factory.
Facts
A factory floor was flooded after an unusually heavy rainstorm, and the water mixed with oil to make the floor slippery. The employers spread sawdust over most of the floor, but did not have enough to cover all of it. Mr Latimer, an employee, slipped on an untreated part of the floor and was injured. He claimed that the employers should have closed the factory until the floor was safe.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the employers were not liable. They had taken all reasonable precautions, and the risk was not so great that a reasonable employer would have closed the factory. Lord Tucker said that the question is whether a reasonably prudent employer would have closed the works, rather than expose employees to the risk. In deciding whether a defendant has acted reasonably, the court must balance the risk against the measures necessary to eliminate it, including their cost and practicality.
Related cases on breach of duty
- Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Exch 781
- Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582
- Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232
- Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850
- Daborn v Bath Tramways Motor Co Ltd [1946] 2 All ER 333
- Dunnage v Randall [2015] EWCA Civ 673, [2016] QB 639
- Glasgow Corporation v Muir [1943] AC 448
- Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, [2015] AC 1430
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.
