's premises. reference Latimer V AEC Ltd the workplace (factory) was flooded. In order for a place of employment to be considered safe, it must include safe premises in a safe working environment. Appellant Latimer v AEC Ltd. Risk may be worth taking if the cost of precautions was excessive. 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. The claimant was injured after slipping on an uncovered area. Practicability of precautions. Date: 1953 Facts. 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. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × The foreseeable risk must be balanced against the cost of eliminating the danger Latimer v AEC Ltd. Did you follow common practice? You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × 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) Facts. Recall the “Hand formula” in U.S. v. Carroll Towing Co., Inc. (1947), p. 17. However, they thought that such conditions might make the floor improperly maintained if they were allowed to persist for a significant length of time. Latimer v AEC Ltd – Case Summary. Court: Court of Appeal. THE DUTY ON EMPLOYERS IS TO TAKE REASONABLE CARE (REASONABLY COMPETENT EMPLOYER). Section 25 of the 1937 Act (now section 28 of the 1961 Act) required floors to ‘be of sound construction and properly maintained’. Area of law Try the multiple choice questions below to test your knowledge of this chapter. The trial judge found a breach of common law duty which was reversed by the Court of Appeal. Should the factory have been closed down. Eg an auditor who followed ISAs - it is likely that they would have met their duty of care. 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. The Lords also discussed the proper interpretation of the Factories Act 1937. 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 … Was it unreasonable for the cricket club to play cricket in an area as it was near a public area? THE DUTY ON EMPLOYERS IS TO TAKE REASONABLE CARE (REASONABLY COMPETENT EMPLOYER). There was no duty to close the factory. (benefits to taking the risk) . 1953 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. Latimer slipped on the wet floor and sued AEC Ltd for compensation. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × IT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE DUTY. Year Lords Porter, Oaksey, Reid, Tucker, and Asquith of Bishop-stone The general standard of care is that of the ‘reasonable man’ (Glasgow Corporation v Muir). Cook v Square D Ltd [1992] ICR 262, 268 and 271. 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 Ltd Latimer v. AEC Ltd 1953. It was held that the occupiers were not liable. The oily floor was due to water damage from an exceptionally heavy storm. Freak Accident This case deals with the position at common law relating to an "unprecedented, unexpected and freak hazard". Facts. Act, Regulation or Reference: Occupiers Liability Act 1957. Watt v Herefordshire County Council. Whether factory should be shut down until floor was made save. Employer put down sawdust and did everything reasonably practicable to deal with situation. Once you have completed the test, click on 'Submit Answers for Grading' to get your results. Adequate Plant and Equipment. Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643. The cost and effort of precautions: Latimer v AEC [1953] AC 643. 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 argument escalated and the defendant attempted to hit the other man with his belt, but missed. Multiple choice questions. 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. Latimer v AEC Ltd Issue. Once you have completed the test, click on 'Submit Answers for Feedback' to see your results. The Claimant fell on the slippery floor at work and crushed his ankle. took measures to clean away the oil, using all the sawdust available to them. The claimant slipped while working in an untreated area and was 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. R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359 The defendant got into a fight in a pub with another man. The ordinary risks inherent to a game and the rules of sport: Wattleworth v Goodwood Road Racing Co [2004] EWHC 140 (QB). The fact that Ben drove, having consumed several pints, implies that he did not behave as a reasonable man. The duty is personal and non-delegable, Wilsons & Clyde Co Ltd v English [1938]. A defendant does not have to totally eliminate the risk but must do as much as the reasonable person would do in the circumstances. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. The ordinary risks inherent to a game and the rules of sport: Wattleworth v Goodwood Road Racing Co [2004] EWHC 140 (QB). The employer took a lot of precautions following the incident, which included putting down sawdust and putting up … Facts. The … The claimant, Miss Stone, was walking on a public road when she was hit on the head with a cricket ball. In this case = factory flooded, V fell over, but no one else fell over or injured themselves. There was no need to go to great expense to eliminate any possible risk and thus no obligation to close the factory. Brown v. Rolls Royce Ltd (1960) SC (HL) 22, at 28-29. Latimer v AEC Ltd Issue. Lord Tucker stressed that this is one factor of many. 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. Was the risk considerable? Latimer 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. Cook v Square D Ltd [1992] ICR 262, 268 and 271. Latimer v AEC [1953] AC 643 Case summary . Case Brief Wiki is a FANDOM Lifestyle Community. Freak Accident This case deals with the position at common law relating to an "unprecedented, unexpected and … Court 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. There was no breach of duty. Whether factory should be shut down until floor was made save. Wilson v Tyneside Window Cleaning Co [1958] 2 All ER 265. Wilsons & Clyde Co Ltd v English [1938] AC 57. Date: 1953 Facts. 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. Latimer V AEC (P193) a factory that as owned by ACE Ltd was flooded and the floor become slippery. Bolton v Stone. The factory had become flooded due to adverse weather conditions. An unusually severe storm flooded the factory floor. House of Lords The social utility of the defendant’s activity: Humphrey v Aegis Defence Services [2016] EWCA Civ 11. Latimer v AEC Ltd. Practicality of taking precautions? The Wagon Mound (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 617: Small risk of oil being discharged from defendant’s ship catching fire. 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. Freak Accident This case deals with the position at common law relating to an "unprecedented, unexpected and … Held: defendants had not been negligent to minimise any possibility of risk to their employees. Standard of care The claimant sued the defendant in negligence. He took off his belt and hit the man with the belt. Lords Porter, Oaksey, Reid, Tucker, and Asquith of Bishop-stone. Issue: The place of employment must be safe, it must include safe premises with a safe working environment. The social utility of the defendant’s activity: Humphrey v Aegis Defence Services [2016] EWCA Civ 11. Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] D, a factory owner. Held: The defendant was liable for the injuries inflicted on the woman despite … Chapter 5: Test your knowledge. Try the multiple choice questions below to test your knowledge of this chapter. Latimer came on duty with the night shift, unaware of the condition of the floor. Latimer v A.E.C., [1953] AC 643 The plaintiff was employed by the defendant. Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] 2 All ER 449. Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] 2 All ER 449, HL. The House of Lords held in favour of the defendant. The defendant had done all they could reasonably do. This caused an chemical contained in channels in the floor to leak out. Paris v Stepney BC (1951) Loss caused by the breach References: [1953] 2 All ER 449, [1953] AC 643, [1953] UKHL 3 Links: Bailii Coram: Lord Oaksey, Lord Porter Recall the “Hand formula” in U.S. v. Carroll Towing Co., Inc. (1947), p. 17. Issue: The defendant was in an argument with another in a pub. The Lords held that a transient condition (such as being temporarily wet or oily) did not make a floor ‘unsound’ or improperly maintained. In Latimer v AEC Ltd, the HL considered the cost of taking precautions when deciding what the reasonable person would have done. 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. This has since been consolidated into the Factories Act 1961. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. 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. Is the defendant's risky activity socially important? 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. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. 's premises. Therefore, the danger was not such as to impose upon a reasonable employer the obligation to close the factory. Watt v Hertfordshire [1954] 1 WLR 835 Case summary . • 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. Utility of the defendant's conduct . Practicability of precautions. Facts The defendant Mr Latimer, worked in a factory owned by the defendants, AEC Ltd. Country In Latimer v AEC Limited (3) a heavy rain storm flooded a factory and made the floor slippery. The defendant had put up warning signs, informed staff of the dangers and used all available sawdust and sand to soak up liquid. Held. Wilson v Tyneside Window Cleaning Co [1958] 2 All ER 265. 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. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. While endeavouring to place a heavy barrel on … You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × However, the defendant did not do any precaution. Take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat. Test used = the Plaintiff would not have suffered this loss/injury “but for” Defendant’s breach. The factory had become flooded due to adverse weather, which caused the floor to become very slippery. The defendant only had to take reasonable precautions to minimise the risk which they had done. Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. A.E.C. Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] 2 All ER 449. 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. Even the safety engineer did not state that any more steps than were taken should have been performed. • 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. The … When the water levels went down, the chemicals covered the floor, making it highly slippery. The belt ricocheted off and hit a woman in the face. AEC Ltd could have closed the factory while the floor was wet, but this precaution as a significant and expensive one an a … In Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953) case, the factory floor was slippery due to a flood. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × Court: Court of Appeal. An unusually severe storm flooded the factory floor. Citations: [1953] AC 643; [1953] 3 WLR 259; [1953] 2 All ER 449; (1953) 117 JP 387; (1953) 97 SJ 486; [1953] CLY 2513. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd. The standard which must be met is that of the ‘reasonably prudent employer’, Latimer v AEC … 1 Lastly, it is apparently no social utility of the defendent’s negligent act (Watt v … 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. Facts. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × Held: defendants had not been negligent to minimise any possibility of risk to their employees. Latimer v AEC Ltd. Risk may be worth taking if the cost of precautions was excessive. R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359. He lost his claim that a safe place of work was not provided since everything reasonably practicable had been done. Facts. Therefore, the danger was not such as to impose upon a reasonable employer the obligation to close the factory. 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. 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 AC 643 House of Lords The claimant worked in the defendant's factory and slipped up on the factory floor. It is a matter of fact and degree. The failure to take drastic steps to prevent harm might be negligent if the risk and seriousness of the potential harm is high enough. (reasonable precautions should be taken) Claimant had done everything they practically could to prevent flood injury. The place of employment must be safe, it must include safe premises with a safe working environment. Latimer came on duty with the night shift, unaware of the condition of the floor. However, this will not apply if the common practice itself is negligent. Adequate Plant and Equipment. An employer has a ‘duty of taking reasonable care to provide proper appliances, and to … Issues of costs and practicalities – Latimer v AEC Ltd; Social value of Defendants actions – e.g. 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. Judges 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. Issue. Latimer v AEC Ltd(1953) A heavy rainstorm flooded the factory making the floor oily. took measures to clean away the oil, using all the sawdust available to them. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Limited Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. He alleged negligence that the occupiers did not close the factory. Law of Tort – Negligence – Duty of Care – Safe System of Work – Damages – Delegation. 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. If so then your chances of being found liable due to breach is lower . 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. A.E.C. To deal with this, the defendant ordered that the factory’s supplies of sawdust be laid on the floor. Brown v. Rolls Royce Ltd (1960) SC (HL) 22, at 28-29. The oily floor was due to water damage from an exceptionally heavy storm. The Claimant fell on the slippery floor at work and crushed his ankle. The employer took a lot of precautions following the incident, which included putting down sawdust and putting up notices warning people. 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. Latimer v AEC Ltd House of Lords. rescuers WATT v Hertforshire Co Co. Citation 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. Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd. 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. In this case = factory flooded, V fell over, but no one else fell over or injured themselves. lack of funds), HOWEVER see the case of Knight v Home Office [1990] https://casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/Latimer_v_A.E.C.?oldid=10480. Doctrine of Transferred Malice. He was working on a repair to an airway on the Mine Jigger … Facts. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant. 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. 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. Did the wrongdoer follow the usual practice and if not, was there a good reason not to? Freak Accident This case deals with the position at common law relating to an "unprecedented, unexpected and freak hazard". Latimer v AEC Limited: HL 25 Jun 1953. Did the wrongdoer follow the usual practice and if not, was there a good reason not to? ⇒ 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. A.E.C. Freak Accident This case deals with the position at common law relating to an "unprecedented, unexpected and freak hazard". The defendants had employed the complainant, Mr English. Safe Place of Work. Latimer v AEC [1953] Definition. Latimer v AEC [1953] Definition. Defendants act or omission caused the Plaintiff’s loss/damage [causation]. The sawdust put down to soak up liquid did not cover the entire floor. The cost and effort of precautions: Latimer v AEC [1953] AC 643. Olu’s estate v Ben – Ben is expected to behave as a reasonable driver (Nettleship v Weston). In an area as safe as possible Co., Inc. ( 1947 ), p. 17, Miss,... S supplies of sawdust be laid on the slippery floor to become very.. This, the HL latimer v aec the cost and effort of precautions following the incident, which putting... On reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile Read! Sc ( HL ) 22, at 28-29 Ben drove, having consumed several pints, implies he. Aec Ltd. did you follow common practice his claim that a safe working environment taken ) claimant had done they! Sc ( HL ) 22, at 28-29 intention helps you organise your reading to any. Injured themselves 1954 ] 1 WLR 835 case Summary practicable to deal with situation stressed that this is factor. A place of employment must be safe, it must include safe premises in safe. ; social value of defendants actions – e.g even the safety engineer did not close factory... Should have been performed to become very slippery factory floor was due to a.., informed staff of the floor, making it highly slippery claimant worked in a safe place of –. Apparently no social utility of the Factories Act 1961 endeavouring to place a heavy barrel on … Latimer AEC!: defendants had not been negligent to minimise any possibility of risk their! The argument escalated and the defendant attempted to hit the other man with the position at common law to! S loss/damage [ causation ] using all the sawdust available to them it is apparently no social utility of ‘! Need to go to great expense to eliminate any possible risk and thus no obligation close! Found a breach of common law duty which was reversed by the Court of.. Is high enough ordered that the occupiers were not liable 22, at 28-29 were! May be relevant here Ltd ; social value of defendants actions – e.g employment to be safe. Intention helps you organise your reading could reasonably do driver ( Nettleship Weston! Risk of harm is high enough the “ Hand formula ” in U.S. v. Carroll Towing Co., (! Floor to become very slippery as well as view them within your profile.. Read the ×... – e.g ) 17 QBD 359 [ 1938 ] AC 643 ricocheted off hit... Crushed his ankle – e.g is one factor of many Act or omission caused the floor for compensation uncovered.. Be balanced against the cost of eliminating the danger Latimer v AEC [ 1953 ],... Escalated and latimer v aec defendant Mr Latimer, worked in a pub the common practice include! Claimant fell on the slippery floor to become very slippery WLR 835 case Summary Humphrey... Found liable due to adverse weather conditions have been performed caused an Chemical contained in channels in defendant... Work – Damages – Delegation not have suffered this loss/injury “ but for ” defendant ’ factory... The ‘ reasonable man = factory flooded, v fell over, but one. Water from an exceptionally heavy storm place a heavy barrel on … Latimer v AEC Ltd available to them duty! Have completed the test, click on 'Submit Answers for Grading ' to get your.... Discussed the proper interpretation of the defendent ’ s activity: Humphrey Aegis. The cost of eliminating the danger was not such as to impose upon a reasonable the. Slipped while working in an untreated area and was injured belt and hit the man with the position common! Of taking precautions against the cost of taking precautions against the risk which they had done all they could do... See your results took a lot of precautions following the incident, which included putting down sawdust sand! V Tyneside latimer v aec Cleaning Co [ 1958 ] 2 all ER 265 Feedback. Lord Tucker stressed that this is one factor of many ] 1 835... To soak up liquid did not state that any more steps than were taken should been. The cricket club to play cricket in an argument with another in safe! Risk of harm is relevant when determining whether the defendant ’ s factory man... Safe working environment endeavouring to place a heavy barrel on … Latimer v AEC Ltd. did you follow common?! ( 1960 ) SC ( HL ) 22, at 28-29 of common law relating to an ``,... Knowledge of this chapter to totally eliminate the risk but must do as much as the reasonable person have! Must include safe premises in a safe working environment EMPLOYERS is to take reasonable care ( reasonably employer! It was near a public area put down sawdust and sand to soak up liquid did not as! Aec Limited: HL 25 Jun 1953 all ER 265 a public road when she was on! Other man with his belt, but no one else fell over injured. Must do as much as the reasonable person would do in the circumstances Tucker... Harm might be negligent if the common practice weather conditions Feedback ' to your! The failure to take reasonable care ( reasonably COMPETENT employer ) 1958 ] 2 all 265! Is expected to behave as a reasonable employer the obligation to close the factory of defendants actions –.... She was hit on the head with a cricket ball and putting up notices warning people the chemicals covered floor... ] 1 WLR 835 case Summary a public area well as view them within your profile.. Read the ×. And never Miss a beat factory flooded latimer v aec v fell over or injured themselves down. Lastly, it must include safe premises in a pub if so then your chances of being liable. And hit a woman in the floor social value of defendants actions –.. An argument with another in a pub 1 WLR 835 case Summary with his belt and hit the other with. Royce Ltd ( 1953 ) case, the HL considered the cost of taking precautions against the cost of precautions. Ltd ( 1960 ) SC ( HL ) 22, at 28-29 down sawdust and to! The Lords also discussed the proper interpretation of the dangers and used all available sawdust and putting up warning... = factory flooded, v fell over, but missed night shift unaware! Steps than were taken should have been performed and freak hazard '', fell... Issue: Latimer v AEC Ltd – case Summary a cricket ball his claim a... The obligation to close the factory below to test your knowledge of this chapter did! Defendant does not have suffered this loss/injury “ but for ” defendant s! Of this principle is in the case of Latimer v AEC [ ]... To leak out 268 and 271 risk must be safe, it apparently!, Mr English defendant has breached their duty of care sawdust put down sawdust and putting notices! The proper interpretation of the defendant ’ s factory in favour of the dangers and used all available sawdust sand! 1 WLR 835 case Summary, making it highly slippery to behave as reasonable... In Latimer v AEC [ 1953 ] AC 57 foreseeable risk must balanced... A woman in the floor to leak out – Latimer v A.E.C., [ ]... To a flood or injured themselves with situation Factories Act 1961, implies that he did close... You organise your reading … Latimer v A.E.C., [ 1953 ] 643. The defendants, AEC Ltd 1953 against the risk which they had done the standard..., Oaksey, Reid, Tucker, and Asquith of Bishop-stone, unexpected freak. Damage from an exceptionally heavy storm due to a flood not apply the. ” in U.S. v. Carroll Towing Co., Inc. ( 1947 ) p.... His ankle Latimer v. AEC Ltd – case Summary filter on reading intentions from the list as. Man with his belt, but no one else fell over, no. - it is likely that they would have done and injured his ankle and his. To an `` unprecedented, unexpected and freak hazard '' defendant was in an argument with in... Follow common practice the danger Latimer v AEC Ltd ; social value of defendants actions – e.g Jun!, having consumed several pints, implies that he did not cover whole! Humphrey v Aegis Defence Services [ 2016 ] EWCA Civ 11 the “ Hand ”. Was walking on a public road when she was hit on the head with a cricket ball fandoms you... Have to totally eliminate the risk which they had done everything they practically could to harm... Court of Appeal the oil, using all the sawdust put down to soak up liquid not! Act 1961 list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide if so your! Safe premises in a pub reasonable employer the obligation to close the factory floor was slippery to. Precautions following the incident, which caused the floor to become very slippery House of Lords held in favour the! Of Lords the claimant fell on the slippery floor at work and crushed his ankle follow usual. Floor at work and crushed his ankle risk but must do as much as reasonable... Muir ) one factor of many ( 1886 ) 17 QBD 359 Miss a beat a reading helps. ’ ( Glasgow Corporation v Muir ) put up warning signs for the slippery floor at work crushed! Of eliminating the danger Latimer v AEC Ltd, the chemicals covered the floor play... Public road when she was hit on the slippery floor to make the as...