Colvilles Ltd v Devine

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies where an accident-causing thing was under the defender’s management and the accident ordinarily would not occur if proper care were used. A violent and unexplained industrial explosion may satisfy that test without direct evidence of its precise cause.

The defender must then provide a reasonable explanation consistent with the exercise of due care. Identifying the probable physical cause is insufficient where the defender fails to show reasonable precautions against that cause. An employer aware that particles in an oxygen supply could ignite did not rebut the inference of negligence without evidence that the supply filter was effective, maintained or inspected.

An employee at the appellants’ steelworks jumped from a platform after a violent explosion near a converter containing molten metal. The explosion followed a fire in a hose carrying oxygen to the converter. The employee sought damages, relying exclusively on res ipsa loquitur to establish negligence.

The Lord Ordinary found for the employee and awarded £1,350. The Second Division, Lord Walker dissenting, refused the employers’ reclaiming motion. The employers appealed to the House of Lords. The central questions were whether the explosion raised an inference of negligence and, if so, whether evidence that particles in the oxygen stream probably caused the fire rebutted that inference.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. Lord Reid agreed that the appeal should be dismissed. Lord Guest, Lord Upjohn and Lord Donovan each concluded that the employee had established liability through res ipsa loquitur.

2. Per Lord Guest, the doctrine applied because the violent explosion was the relevant occurrence, the plant was under the appellants’ management, and such an explosion was self-evidently outside the ordinary course of properly managed steelworks operations. He applied the test stated in Scott v The London and St Katherine Docks Co.

3. Per Lord Donovan, the appellants’ basic duty was to provide plant and machinery as safe as reasonable care could make them. Their purchase of new plant from reputable manufacturers, and the absence of earlier incidents or warnings, supported rather than displaced the inference that the accident ordinarily would not occur if due care were taken.

4. Per Lord Guest and Lord Upjohn, the most probable explanation was that particles in the oxygen stream caused friction and ignited the inside of the hose. Positive proof that particles were present was unnecessary. This was a plausible explanation rather than mere speculation.

5. Per Lord Guest, however, a reasonable explanation of the physical cause only carried the appellants part of the way. Consistently with Woods v Duncan and Marshall & Son v Russian Oil Products Ltd, the explanation also had to be consistent with an absence of negligence by the appellants.

6. Per Lord Guest, Lord Upjohn and Lord Donovan, the appellants failed to discharge that burden. They knew that particles in the oxygen supply could cause fire. A filter was situated in the supply pipe on their premises, but they produced no evidence of its effectiveness, condition, maintenance or inspection. The probable cause therefore explained the explosion without exculpating the appellants, and the inference of negligence remained unrebutted.

1. House of Lords: The employers’ appeal was dismissed unanimously. The employee’s award of damages was upheld.
2. Second Division of the Court of Session: The court, Lord Walker dissenting, refused the employers’ reclaiming motion and adhered to the Lord Ordinary’s decision.
3. Lord Ordinary: Lord Avonside found the employers liable and awarded the employee £1,350 in damages.