Stapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd

Legal causation is determined by applying common sense to the particular facts, as a properly instructed and reasonable jury would do. Where several faults occur, the court must distinguish causes that remain legally effective from those that are too remote. Closely connected negligent acts or omissions may jointly cause damage even though one act is more immediate.

Where damage results partly from the claimant’s fault and partly from another’s fault, the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 requires a just and equitable reduction. Apportionment considers both relative blameworthiness and the causal importance of each party’s conduct.

Two mineworkers of equal status were ordered to bring down an unsafe roof and understood that nobody was to work beneath it until it had been made safe. After unsuccessful attempts with picks, they jointly abandoned the task. The deceased entered the stope to resume his ordinary work and was killed when the roof fell.

In Stapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd, the widow claimed that the employer was liable for the surviving worker’s negligence and for breaches of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations 1938. Sellers J awarded half of the assessed damages after attributing equal responsibility to the deceased. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision and held that the action failed.

The central question before the House was whether the surviving worker’s disobedience and omissions legally contributed to the death. If so, the House also had to determine the just and equitable apportionment of responsibility.

1. Disposition. The appeal was allowed by a majority of three to two. Lord Oaksey, Lord Reid and Lord Tucker held that the surviving worker’s fault contributed to the death. Lord Porter and Lord Asquith of Bishopstone dissented on causation. All five Law Lords accepted that, if liability existed, the widow should recover 20 per cent of the assessed damage.
2. Causation. Per Lord Reid, legal causation is determined through the common-sense judgment of a properly instructed and reasonable jury. Historical or scientific causation is insufficient. A court must discard faults that are too remote while recognising that two or more faults may jointly cause an accident. The approach in Admiralty Commissioners v s.s. Volute [1922] 1 A.C. 129 was applied.
3. The surviving worker’s fault. Lord Oaksey regarded the workers’ concurrent and continuing disobedience as inseparably mixed. Lord Reid considered it highly probable that compliance by the surviving worker, whether by continuing the work or reporting to the foreman, would have prevented the accident. Lord Tucker likewise held that the deceased’s later entry into the stope was not an independent cause separated from their earlier disobedience. The employer was therefore liable for the surviving worker’s negligence once the defence of common employment had been abolished.
4. Apportionment. Per Lord Reid, the reduction required by the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 depends both on relative blameworthiness and on the relative importance of each party’s conduct in causing the damage. The deceased’s deliberate entry beneath the unsafe roof contributed more immediately than the surviving worker’s omission. The damages were reduced by 80 per cent, producing an award of £605.
5. Statutory duties and dissent. The House found it unnecessary to decide whether the employer had breached Regulation 7(3) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations 1938. Lord Tucker treated the surviving worker’s admitted breaches of Regulations 15(1) and 15(10) as also constituting common-law negligence. Lord Porter and Lord Asquith considered the deceased’s return to the stope to be the sole effective legal cause. Lord Asquith additionally considered that the employer had complied with its regulatory obligations.

1. House of Lords: By a majority of three to two, allowed the widow’s appeal in Stapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd [1953] AC 663. It restored liability but varied the trial apportionment, awarding £605.
2. Court of Appeal: Reversed Sellers J and held that the action failed because the deceased’s resumption of work beneath the unsafe roof was the legal cause of his death, although the members of the court differed in their reasoning.
3. High Court, Sellers J: Found the employer liable and assessed total damages at £3,025. He attributed equal responsibility to the deceased and the surviving worker and awarded £1,512 10s.