|
[1969] 3 All ER 1303, [1969] 1 WLR 1556, 67 LGR 703, 7 KIR 318, 113 Sol Jo 812
Court: Assizes
Judgment Date: circa 1969
Cases referring to this case
Annotations: All Cases Court: ALL COURTS
Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)
Treatment
| Case Name
| Citations
| Court
| Date
| Signal
|
Distinguishe d
| Robinson v Post Office
| [1974] 2 All ER 737, [1974] 1 WLR 1176, 117 Sol Jo 915
| CA
| circa 1974
|
|
Cases considered by this case
Annotations: All CasesCourt: ALL COURTS
Treatment
| Case Name
| Citations
| Court
| Date
| Signal
|
Considered
| Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty, The Wagon Mound (No 2)
| [1967] 1 AC 617, [1966] 2 All ER 709, [1966] 3 WLR 498, [1966] 1 Lloyd's Rep 657, 110 Sol Jo 447, [1967] ALR 97, [1966] 1 NSWR 411
| PC
| circa 1967
|
|
Considered
| Bradford v Robinson Rentals Ltd
| [1967] 1 All ER 267, [1967] 1 WLR 337, 1 KIR 486, 111 Sol Jo 33
| Assize s
| circa 1967
|
|
Considered
| Hughes v Lord Advocate
| [1963] AC 837, [1963] 1 All ER 705, [1963] 2 WLR 779, 107 Sol Jo 232, 1963 SC 31, 1963 SLT 150
| HL
| circa 1963
|
|
Considered
| Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd
| [1962] 2 QB 405, [1961] 3 All ER 1159, [1962] 2 WLR 148, 106 Sol Jo 77
| QBD
| circa 1962
|
|
AGRICULTURE - EMPLOYMENT - INJURY FROM DISEASE CARRIED BY RATS-UNFORESEEABLE RISK-LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER
In the course of and in consequence of his employment as a herdsman on defendants' farm, plaintiff in March 1967 contracted Weil's disease, a disease carried by rats but very rarely contracted by humans by reason of their very slight susceptibility to the disease. Expert evidence disclosed that the risk of infection in 1967 was a remote possibility, that it was the only disease caused by rats which was not associated either with rat-bites or with food contamination by rats, and that knowledge of the disease in this country was as rare as the disease itself. There was no evidence that farmers knew or ought reasonably to have known of Weil's disease, and first defendant had never heard of it. Although there had been a considerable growth in the rat population on the farm early in 1967, the court was not satisfied that defendants knew or ought reasonably to have known this, or that any more precautions against rat infestation were required than those which they had applied as a matter of routine. On the question whether plaintiff's illness was attributable to any negligent breach of defendants' duty of care to plaintiff, for which they would be liable: Held (1) a master's duty of care to his servants was to take reasonable steps to avoid exposing them to a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury, and on the facts of the case, plaintiff's illness was not attributable to any breach of this duty; (2) if (contrary to holding (1) supra), defendants were in breach of duty in that they ought to have known of the extent of the infestation in March 1967, and ought to have foreseen that plaintiff was, or might be, exposed to some general hazard involving personal injury, illness or disease in consequence of the infestation, they were still immune from liability on the grounds that Weil's disease was at best a remote possibility which they could not reasonably foresee, and that the damage suffered by plaintiff was, therefore, unforeseeable and too remote to be recoverable; (3) the kind of damage suffered by plaintiff, being a disease contracted by contact with rats' urine, was entirely different from the effect of a rat-bite, or food poisoning by the consumption of food or drink contaminated by rats, and defendants could not reasonably foresee the risk of this initial infection.
EMPLOYMENT - LIABILITIES - LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER IN CASE OF ACCIDENT OR DEATH - DUTIES OF EMPLOYER - IN GENERAL - REASONABLE CARE - PROTECTION FROM UNNECESSARY RISK - RISK MUST BE FORESEEABLE
In the course of and in consequence of his employment as a herdsman on the defendants' farm, plaintiff in March 1967 contracted Weil's disease, a disease carried by rats but very rarely contracted by humans by reason of their very slight susceptibility to the disease. Expert evidence disclosed that the risk of infection in 1967 was a remote possibility, that it was the only disease caused by rats which was not associated either with rat-bites or with food contamination by rats, and that knowledge of the disease in this country was as rare as the disease itself. There was no evidence that farmers knew or ought reasonably to have known of Weil's disease, and the first defendant had never heard of it. Although there had been a considerable growth in the rat population on the farm early in 1967, the court was not satisfied that defendants knew or ought reasonably to have known this, or that any more precautions against rat infestation were required than those which they had applied as a matter of routine. On the question whether plaintiff's illness was attributable to any negligent breach of defendants' duty of care to plaintiff, for which they would be liable: Held (1) a master's duty of care to his servants was to take reasonable steps to avoid exposing them to a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury, and on the facts of the case, plaintiff's illness was not attributable to any breach of this duty; (2) if (contrary to holding (1) supra), defendants were in breach of duty in that they ought to have known of the extent of the infestation in March 1967, and ought to have foreseen that plaintiff was, or might be, exposed to some general hazard involving personal injury, illness or disease in consequence of the infestation, they were still immune from liability on the grounds that Weil's disease was at best a remote possibility which they could not reasonably foresee, and that the damage suffered by plaintiff was, therefore, unforeseeable and too remote to be recoverable; (3) the kind of damage suffered by plaintiff, being a disease contracted by contact with rats' urine, was entirely different from the effect of a rat-bite, or food poisoning by the consumption of food or drink contaminated by rats, and defendants could not reasonably foresee the risk of this initial infection.
NEGLIGENCE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE - CAUSATION - INJURY MUST BE RESULT OF NEGLIGENCE - IN GENERAL - FORSEEABILITY OF DAMAGE - INJURY NOT CAPABLE OF BEING FORESEEN OR ANTICIPATED
In the course of and in consequence of his employment as a herdsman on defendants' farm, plaintiff in March 1967 contracted Weil's disease, a disease carried by rats but very rarely contracted by humans by reason of their very slight susceptibility to the disease. Expert evidence disclosed that the risk of infection in 1967 was a remote possibility, that it was the only disease caused by rats which was not associated either with rat-bites or with food contamination by rats, and that knowledge of the disease in this country was as rare as the disease itself. There was no evidence that farmers knew or ought reasonably to have known of Weil's disease, and the first defendant had never heard of it. Although there had been a considerable growth in the rat population on the farm early in 1967, the court was not satisfied that defendants knew or ought reasonably to have known this, or that any more precautions against rat infestation were required than those which they had applied as a matter of routine. On the question whether plaintiff's illness was attributable to any negligent breach of defendant's duty of care to plaintiff, for which they would be liable: Held (1) a master's duty of care to his servants was to take reasonable steps to avoid exposing them to a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury, and on the facts of the case, plaintiff's illness was not attributable to any breach of this duty; (2) if (contrary to holding (1) supra), defendants were in breach of duty in that they ought to have known of the extent of the infestation in March 1967, and ought to have foreseen that plaintiff was, or might be, exposed to some general hazard involving personal injury, illness or disease in consequence of the infestation, they were still immune from liability on the grounds that Weil's disease was at best a remote possibility which they could not reasonably foresee, and that the damage suffered by plaintiff was, therefore, unforeseeable and too remote to be recoverable; (3) the kind of damage suffered by plaintiff, being a disease contracted by contact with rat's urine, was entirely different from the effect of a rat-bite, or food poisoning by the consumption of food or drink contaminated by rats, and defendants could not reasonably foresee the risk of this initial infection.
|