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