Latimer v A E C Ltd

An employer must take the precautions which a reasonably prudent employer would take in the circumstances. The likelihood and gravity of injury must be weighed against the practicability and consequences of the proposed precaution. Closing a workplace is required only where the danger is sufficiently grave to justify that step.

An absolute statutory duty to maintain a factory floor in an efficient state concerns the condition of the floor itself. It does not extend to a transient and exceptional danger caused by material temporarily deposited on an otherwise sound floor.

An employee was injured when he slipped on an oily film left on a factory floor after an unprecedented rainstorm had flooded the employer's premises. The employer had deployed workers and all available sawdust to address the flooding, but had not covered every affected area or suspended the night shift.

Pilcher J rejected the claim for breach of statutory duty but awarded damages for common law negligence because the employer had not closed the factory or the affected part. The Court of Appeal upheld the statutory ruling but reversed the finding of negligence. The employee appealed on both grounds.

The central issues were whether reasonable care required the employer to suspend work and whether the temporary oily deposit meant that the floor was not properly maintained under sections 25(1) and 152(1) of the Factories Act 1937.

1. Disposition. The House of Lords unanimously dismissed the appeal. All five Law Lords concluded that the employer was neither negligent at common law nor in breach of the statutory duty concerning factory floors.

2. Common law negligence. Lord Porter held that the question was what a reasonably prudent employer would have done in the proved circumstances. The likelihood of a worker slipping had to be considered alongside the seriousness of closing the works, the importance of continuing production and the possibility of partial closure. The employee had not established that a reasonably careful employer would have taken the drastic step of closing the factory.

   Lord Tucker, whose reasoning Lord Reid expressly adopted on this issue, framed the decisive question as whether the floor was so slippery that a reasonably prudent employer would have closed the factory when further remedial measures were unavailable. The danger was not proved sufficiently grave. No other worker was shown to have slipped, experienced difficulty or complained. Lord Asquith likewise regarded the risk as inconsiderable and the evidence about the consequences of closure as inadequate. Lord Oaksey concluded that continuing work was, at most, an error of judgment in difficult circumstances and did not amount to negligence.

3. Statutory duty. Lord Porter held that section 25(1), read with section 152(1) of the Factories Act 1937, was directed principally to the general condition of a floor or gangway. It did not extend to a transient and exceptional condition temporarily superimposed upon it. Lord Reid similarly held that maintaining a floor did not include keeping dangerous foreign matter away from an otherwise sound floor.

   Lord Oaksey considered that the absolute duty to maintain a floor in an efficient state involved a question of degree. Lord Asquith preferred a structural construction under which the requirement of sound construction controlled the maintenance obligation. Lord Tucker agreed that the provisions did not bear the wide meaning advanced by the employee. On the common basis of the speeches, the temporary oily film did not establish a breach.

4. Authorities and order. Galashiels Gas Company, Limited v Millar [1949] AC 275 was distinguished because the mechanism required to be maintained was itself out of order, whereas the present danger was temporarily deposited on the floor. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

1. House of Lords: Dismissed the employee's appeal unanimously and affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision.
2. Court of Appeal: Upheld the rejection of the statutory claim but reversed the finding of common law negligence.
3. High Court, Pilcher J: Rejected the claim for breach of statutory duty but awarded £550 damages for common law negligence.