Roles v Nathan
An occupier is not liable to specialist workers who are injured by a risk that is ordinarily incident to their calling, where they have been warned of the danger.
Facts
Two chimney sweeps were called to clean the flues of a boiler at a building occupied by Mr Nathan. They were warned by an expert that the flues were dangerous, because of the risk of carbon monoxide fumes, and they were told not to work in the flue while the boiler was alight. They were ordered out, but returned later to finish the job while the boiler was still alight, and were killed by fumes. Their widows sued the occupier.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the occupier was not liable. Lord Denning MR said that, under section 2(3)(b) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, an occupier may expect that a person, in the exercise of his calling, will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it, so far as the occupier leaves him free to do so. The risk of fumes was a special risk of the sweeps' work, and they had been clearly warned. The warning was enough to enable them to be reasonably safe, under section 2(4)(a).
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
- Haseldine v CA Daw & Son Ltd [1941] 2 KB 343
- Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust [2006] EWCA Civ 39, [2006] 1 WLR 953
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.
