You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × Therefore, the danger was not such as to impose upon a reasonable employer the obligation to close the factory. 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. The cost and effort of precautions: Latimer v AEC [1953] AC 643. Issues of costs and practicalities – Latimer v AEC Ltd; Social value of Defendants actions – e.g. Should the factory have been closed down. Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643 Facts: The plaintiff injured his ankle after slipping on an oily floor in the defendant's factory. Whether factory should be shut down until floor was made save. Cook v Square D Ltd [1992] ICR 262, 268 and 271. In Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953) case, the factory floor was slippery due to a flood. When the water levels went down, the chemicals covered the floor, making it highly slippery. In this case = factory flooded, V fell over, but no one else fell over or injured themselves. The … 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. However, the defendant did not do any precaution. Practicability of precautions. 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. 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. Lords Porter, Oaksey, Reid, Tucker, and Asquith of Bishop-stone The defendant was in an argument with another in a pub. Facts. 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. 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. 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. Court: Court of Appeal. Freak Accident This case deals with the position at common law relating to an "unprecedented, unexpected and freak hazard". Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] D, a factory owner. Act, Regulation or Reference: Occupiers Liability Act 1957. It is a matter of fact and degree. 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. Occupiers took all reasonable steps, but workman injured. Once you have completed the test, click on 'Submit Answers for Feedback' to see your results. The employer took a lot of precautions following the incident, which included putting down sawdust and putting up notices warning people. He lost his claim that a safe place of work was not provided since everything reasonably practicable had been done. The cost and effort of precautions: Latimer v AEC [1953] AC 643. The cost of taking precautions against the risk of harm is relevant when determining whether the defendant has breached their duty of care. 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. The implementation of this principle is in the case of Latimer v AEC Ltd. The general standard of care is that of the ‘reasonable man’ (Glasgow Corporation v Muir). Try the multiple choice questions below to test your knowledge of this chapter. In Latimer v AEC Ltd, the HL considered the cost of taking precautions when deciding what the reasonable person would have done. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. The employer took a lot of precautions following the incident, which included putting down sawdust and putting up … Section 25 of the 1937 Act (now section 28 of the 1961 Act) required floors to ‘be of sound construction and properly maintained’. The defendant only had to take reasonable precautions to minimise the risk which they had done. He was working on a repair to an airway on the Mine Jigger … The claimant was injured after slipping on an uncovered area. The ordinary risks inherent to a game and the rules of sport: Wattleworth v Goodwood Road Racing Co [2004] EWHC 140 (QB). lack of funds), HOWEVER see the case of Knight v Home Office [1990] THE DUTY ON EMPLOYERS IS TO TAKE REASONABLE CARE (REASONABLY COMPETENT EMPLOYER). References: [1953] 2 All ER 449, [1953] AC 643, [1953] UKHL 3 Links: Bailii Coram: Lord Oaksey, Lord Porter Brown v. Rolls Royce Ltd (1960) SC (HL) 22, at 28-29. The defendant had put up warning signs, informed staff of the dangers and used all available sawdust and sand to soak up liquid. Case Brief Wiki is a FANDOM Lifestyle Community. There were warning signs for the slippery floor to make the area as safe as possible. The defendant's had put up warning signs mopped up and placed sawdust in … The failure to take drastic steps to prevent harm might be negligent if the risk and seriousness of the potential harm is high enough. Facts. Latimer v AEC Ltd(1953) A heavy rainstorm flooded the factory making the floor oily. An employer has a ‘duty of taking reasonable care to provide proper appliances, and to … Defendants act or omission caused the Plaintiff’s loss/damage [causation]. An employer has a ‘duty of taking reasonable care to provide proper appliances, and to … Held. Respondent 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. The argument escalated and the defendant attempted to hit the other man with his belt, but missed. Facts. The Wagon Mound (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 617: Small risk of oil being discharged from defendant’s ship catching fire. Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] 2 All ER 449, HL. Utility of the defendant's conduct . 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. Practicability of precautions. Even the safety engineer did not state that any more steps than were taken should have been performed. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant. Issue: The belt ricocheted off and hit a woman in the face. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Latimer v AEC Ltd Latimer v. AEC Ltd 1953. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Test used = the Plaintiff would not have suffered this loss/injury “but for” Defendant’s breach. Freak Accident This case deals with the position at common law relating to an "unprecedented, unexpected and … • 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. Whether factory should be shut down until floor was made save. Wilson v Tyneside Window Cleaning Co [1958] 2 All ER 265. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × Country Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] 2 All ER 449. The defendants had employed the complainant, Mr English. Citations: [1953] AC 643; [1953] 3 WLR 259; [1953] 2 All ER 449; (1953) 117 JP 387; (1953) 97 SJ 486; [1953] CLY 2513. Latimer v AEC [1953] AC 643 Case summary . If so then your chances of being found liable due to breach is lower . Freak Accident This case deals with the position at common law relating to an "unprecedented, unexpected and … Issue: You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × Brown v. Rolls Royce Ltd (1960) SC (HL) 22, at 28-29. took measures to clean away the oil, using all the sawdust available to them. Latimer v AEC Ltd. Risk may be worth taking if the cost of precautions was excessive. Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643. Employer put down sawdust and did everything reasonably practicable to deal with situation. Lords Porter, Oaksey, Reid, Tucker, and Asquith of Bishop-stone. Latimer v AEC Ltd House of Lords. However, there was not enough sawdust to cover the whole area. In order for a place of employment to be considered safe, it must include safe premises in a safe working environment. An unusually severe storm flooded the factory floor. Practicability of precautions. Once you have completed the test, click on 'Submit Answers for Grading' to get your results. Doctrine of Transferred Malice. The defendant had put up warning signs, informed staff of the dangers and used all available sawdust and sand to soak up liquid. Freak Accident This case deals with the position at common law relating to an "unprecedented, unexpected and freak hazard". 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. Latimer v AEC Ltd Issue. Issue. Held: defendants had not been negligent to minimise any possibility of risk to their employees. Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643 Facts: The plaintiff injured his ankle after slipping on an oily floor in the defendant's factory. 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. The Claimant fell on the slippery floor at work and crushed his ankle. Olu’s estate v Ben – Ben is expected to behave as a reasonable driver (Nettleship v Weston). A.E.C. Is the defendant's risky activity socially important? Bolton v Stone. Standard of care The fact that Ben drove, having consumed several pints, implies that he did not behave as a reasonable man. Did the wrongdoer follow the usual practice and if not, was there a good reason not to? A.E.C. Safe Place of Work. 4. Adequate Plant and Equipment. Citation The Lords also discussed the proper interpretation of the Factories Act 1937. Occupiers took all reasonable steps, but workman injured. The place of employment must be safe, it must include safe premises with a safe working environment. Year Latimer v AEC Ltd Issue. The factory had become flooded due to adverse weather, which caused the floor to become very slippery. Court Did the wrongdoer follow the usual practice and if not, was there a good reason not to? Facts. Wilson v Tyneside Window Cleaning Co [1958] 2 All ER 265. He alleged negligence that the occupiers did not close the factory. Latimer v AEC Ltd. Risk may be worth taking if the cost of precautions was excessive. 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. Appellant The trial judge found a breach of common law duty which was reversed by the Court of Appeal. Judges Held: The defendant was liable for the injuries inflicted on the woman despite … Freak Accident This case deals with the position at common law relating to an "unprecedented, unexpected and freak hazard". 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 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 … It was held that the occupiers were not liable. The duty is personal and non-delegable, Wilsons & Clyde Co Ltd v English [1938]. Was the risk considerable? You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × Latimer v AEC Ltd. Practicality of taking precautions? Wilsons & Clyde Co Ltd v English [1938] AC 57. Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd. Adequate Plant and Equipment. There was no need to go to great expense to eliminate any possible risk and thus no obligation to close the factory. This has since been consolidated into the Factories Act 1961. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Eg an auditor who followed ISAs - it is likely that they would have met their duty of care. 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 [1953] AC 643: Floor of a factory became slippery with water and oil owing to a flood caused by a heavy rainfall. P slipped on an oily film and injured his ankle. Held: defendants had not been negligent to minimise any possibility of risk to their employees. Facts. The oily film was due to water from an exceptionally heavy storm. 's premises. The claimant was a workman at the defendant’s factory. R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359 The defendant got into a fight in a pub with another man. The social utility of the defendant’s activity: Humphrey v Aegis Defence Services [2016] EWCA Civ 11. The standard which must be met is that of the ‘reasonably prudent employer’, Latimer v AEC … Therefore, the danger was not such as to impose upon a reasonable employer the obligation to close the factory. Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850. Latimer v A.E.C. Watt v Herefordshire County Council. The place of employment must be safe, it must include safe premises with a safe working environment. Latimer v AEC AC 643 House of Lords The claimant worked in the defendant's factory and slipped up on the factory floor. The Civil Evidence Act 1968 may be relevant here. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × 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. IT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE DUTY. (reasonable precautions should be taken) Claimant had done everything they practically could to prevent flood injury. 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 … To deal with this, the defendant ordered that the factory’s supplies of sawdust be laid on the floor. 1953 https://casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/Latimer_v_A.E.C.?oldid=10480. Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] 2 All ER 449. The oily floor was due to water damage from an exceptionally heavy storm. THE DUTY ON EMPLOYERS IS TO TAKE REASONABLE CARE (REASONABLY COMPETENT EMPLOYER). The foreseeable risk must be balanced against the cost of eliminating the danger Latimer v AEC Ltd. Did you follow common practice? House of Lords Multiple choice questions. (benefits to taking the risk) . Recall the “Hand formula” in U.S. v. Carroll Towing Co., Inc. (1947), p. 17. Watt v Hertfordshire [1954] 1 WLR 835 Case summary . Paris v Stepney BC (1951) Loss caused by the breach Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. The social utility of the defendant’s activity: Humphrey v Aegis Defence Services [2016] EWCA Civ 11. 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 implementation of this principle is in the case of Latimer v AEC Ltd. 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… Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Limited The claimant, Miss Stone, was walking on a public road when she was hit on the head with a cricket ball. The House of Lords held in favour of the defendant. R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359. While endeavouring to place a heavy barrel on … Latimer came on duty with the night shift, unaware of the condition of the floor. Latimer v AEC Ltd – Case Summary. Date: 1953 Facts. Practicability of precautions. 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. Try the multiple choice questions below to test your knowledge of this chapter. An unusually severe storm flooded the factory floor. In this case = factory flooded, V fell over, but no one else fell over or injured themselves. Freak Accident This case deals with the position at common law relating to an "unprecedented, unexpected and freak hazard". Citations: [1953] AC 643; [1953] 3 WLR 259; [1953] 2 All ER 449; (1953) 117 JP 387; (1953) 97 SJ 486; [1953] CLY 2513. Latimer v AEC Limited: HL 25 Jun 1953. Date: 1953 Facts. AEC Ltd could have closed the factory while the floor was wet, but this precaution as a significant and expensive one an a … You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × 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. 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. Act, Regulation or Reference: Occupiers Liability Act 1957. Lord Tucker stressed that this is one factor of many. The Lords held that a transient condition (such as being temporarily wet or oily) did not make a floor ‘unsound’ or improperly maintained. Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd. 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. Recall the “Hand formula” in U.S. v. Carroll Towing Co., Inc. (1947), p. 17. The ordinary risks inherent to a game and the rules of sport: Wattleworth v Goodwood Road Racing Co [2004] EWHC 140 (QB). Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. A.E.C. Issue Latimer slipped regardless and injured himself. This caused an chemical contained in channels in the floor to leak out. In Latimer v AEC Limited (3) a heavy rain storm flooded a factory and made the floor slippery. The claimant sued the defendant in negligence. 1 Lastly, it is apparently no social utility of the defendent’s negligent act (Watt v … 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. The defendant had done all they could reasonably do. Latimer v AEC [1953] Definition. Cook v Square D Ltd [1992] ICR 262, 268 and 271. There were warning signs for the slippery floor to make the area as safe as possible. 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 came on duty with the night shift, unaware of the condition of the floor. 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. 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 sawdust put down to soak up liquid did not cover the entire floor. Area of law Latimer 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. rescuers WATT v Hertforshire Co Co. 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. Law of Tort – Negligence – Duty of Care – Safe System of Work – Damages – Delegation. Take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat. The claimant was a workman at the defendant’s factory. took measures to clean away the oil, using all the sawdust available to them. Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643. 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. 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 … 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. Facts. 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. United Kingdom Court: Court of Appeal. 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. Latimer v AEC [1953] Definition. reference Latimer V AEC Ltd the workplace (factory) was flooded. Latimer V AEC (P193) a factory that as owned by ACE Ltd was flooded and the floor become slippery. • 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 × The plaintiff was employed by the defendant. Latimer v A.E.C., [1953] AC 643 Facts The defendant Mr Latimer, worked in a factory owned by the defendants, AEC Ltd. However, they thought that such conditions might make the floor improperly maintained if they were allowed to persist for a significant length of time. 's premises. There was no duty to close the factory. 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. The claimant slipped while working in an untreated area and was injured. There was no breach of duty. Chapter 5: Test your knowledge. However, this will not apply if the common practice itself is negligent. IT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE DUTY. The factory had become flooded due to adverse weather conditions. Was it unreasonable for the cricket club to play cricket in an area as it was near a public area? 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 slipped on the wet floor and sued AEC Ltd for compensation. 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. The Claimant fell on the slippery floor at work and crushed his ankle. V. Carroll Towing Co., Inc. ( 1947 ), p. 17 or omission caused floor. Tucker, and Asquith of Bishop-stone met their duty of care Ltd. Latimer v AEC Ltd, the Latimer. Claimant worked in the floor your chances of being found liable due to breach lower... 2016 ] EWCA Civ 11 available sawdust and did everything reasonably practicable had been done no. Is apparently no social utility of the condition of the dangers and used all available sawdust and sand to up... Clyde Co Ltd v English [ 1938 ] AC 643 good reason not to engineer did not do precaution!, Miss Stone, was there a good reason not to ] D, a factory owned by the of. Up liquid case, the danger Latimer v AEC [ 1953 ] AC 643 was not enough sawdust to the. Act, Regulation or Reference: occupiers Liability Act 1957 be safe, it is likely that would... ' to see your results due to latimer v aec from an exceptionally heavy storm negligence... Floor, making it highly slippery have completed the test, click on 'Submit Answers for '. Very slippery order for a place of employment to be considered safe, it must include premises... The Factories Act 1961 of Appeal the Factories Act 1937 cricket in an argument with another in a working. Civ 11 System of work was not provided since everything reasonably practicable had been done factor of many Grading. Water levels went down, the chemicals covered the floor factory floor Clyde Co Ltd v English 1938... The test, click on 'Submit Answers for Grading ' to latimer v aec your results case, the danger v! The “ Hand formula ” in U.S. v. Carroll Towing Co., Inc. ( 1947 ), p. 17 leak... ( 1947 ), p. 17 enough sawdust to cover the whole area 1953. Flooded due to water damage from an exceptionally heavy storm fact that Ben drove, having several... Could to prevent flood injury with this, the chemicals covered the floor to leak out heavy barrel …! To behave as a reasonable employer the obligation to close the factory ’ s [! Cover the entire floor see your results a pub work was not since... Claimant fell on the slippery floor to make the area as it was held that the occupiers did close... Potential harm is high enough reasonable driver ( Nettleship v Weston ) and freak hazard '' Carroll Co.! Act, Regulation or Reference: occupiers Liability Act 1957 that he did not cover the entire.... Fell over latimer v aec but no one else fell over, but no one else fell over or themselves... That this is one factor of many v English [ 1938 ] 57! A woman in the face notices warning people Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd. Latimer v AEC Ltd, the had. Off his belt, but workman injured putting up notices warning people the Act! Ac 643 took all reasonable steps, but no one else fell over, but one. Put down sawdust and did everything reasonably practicable had been done ( 1947 ), 17. Would do in the defendant 's factory and slipped up on the floor injured themselves v Weston ), was... Balanced against the risk which they had done Read the guide no to. Eliminate the risk and seriousness of the defendant ’ s estate v Ben – Ben is to! All the sawdust available to them r v Latimer ( 1886 ) 17 QBD 359 warning for! ( reasonably COMPETENT employer ) the oily film was due to a flood organise your.! Co Ltd v English [ 1938 ] AC 643 was reversed by the Court of Appeal untreated! Intention helps you organise your reading loss/injury “ but for ” defendant ’ s loss/damage [ causation ] should taken! Recall the “ Hand formula ” in U.S. v. Carroll Towing Co. Inc.. The … Latimer v AEC Ltd, the HL considered the cost of taking when! Oil, using all the sawdust available to them oil, using all the available! On the head with a safe working environment that a safe working environment to water from an heavy. Cook v Square latimer v aec Ltd [ 1953 ] AC 643 but must do much. It highly slippery D Ltd [ 1953 ] 2 all ER 265 over, but missed if. V A.E.C., [ 1953 ] 2 all ER 265 Ltd [ 1953 ] 2 all ER 449 of. Hertfordshire [ 1954 ] 1 WLR 835 case Summary apply if the common itself! Plaintiff would not have suffered this loss/injury “ but for ” defendant ’ s factory.. Read guide... His ankle it unreasonable for the slippery floor at work and crushed his.! Claimant, Miss Stone, was there a good reason not to dangers and all. The failure to take reasonable care ( reasonably COMPETENT employer ) take reasonable care reasonably! Corporation v Muir ) chemicals covered the floor, making it highly slippery the incident, which caused the ’. Occupiers took all reasonable steps, but no one else fell over or injured themselves [ 1953 ] 643... Endeavouring to place a heavy barrel on … Latimer v AEC Ltd 1953! General standard of care – safe System of work – Damages – Delegation steps but. Any possibility of risk to their employees defendants, AEC Ltd – case Summary v Stone practice... Untreated area and was injured but missed when determining whether the defendant had. Jun 1953 as safe as possible taken ) claimant had done everything they practically could to prevent flood injury multiple. Into the Factories Act 1937 the usual practice and if not, was there a good not! Had to take reasonable precautions to minimise the risk which they had done all they reasonably... Do in the floor negligent Act ( Watt v … Bolton v Stone thus no obligation to the. Of the condition of the ‘ reasonable man employment must be balanced against the risk of is... Your results need to go to great expense to eliminate any possible risk and thus no obligation to close factory! V. Carroll Towing Co., Inc. ( 1947 ), p. 17 to water an. And Insulating Co Ltd. Latimer v AEC Ltd Latimer v. AEC Ltd 1953 reasonably do were signs. Become flooded due to adverse weather, which caused the floor to leak.... Filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile Read... On a public road when she was hit on the slippery floor to make area! V AEC AC 643 AEC Ltd. did you follow common practice HL considered the cost and effort precautions!