Hadlow v Peterborough City Council

Foreseeability in negligence does not require prediction of the precise accident or the precise chain of events. It is sufficient that the injury is reasonably foreseeable as sufficiently connected with a known source of danger created by the breach.

Where a breach creates a risk of personal injury, a claimant’s reasonable and prompt attempt to remove or avoid that risk does not break causation merely because the risk does not materialise in its most likely form. Injury sustained during that reasonable response may remain a consequence of the breach.

The respondent, a teacher employed at a secure unit operated by the appellant council, was left alone with three young women despite a procedure requiring additional staff cover. She attempted to attract the attention of the departing care staff, moved quickly through a confined space and fell, sustaining injury.

Lincoln County Court awarded her damages of £16,432.51. The council appealed, arguing that the precise accident was unforeseeable and that the respondent’s reaction broke the chain of causation. A further allegation under regulation 12(3) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 was not necessary to determine the appeal.

1. Appeal dismissed. The respondent was entitled to damages, and the appellant was ordered to pay costs summarily assessed at £9,500 inclusive of VAT.
2. Breach and reasonable response. Leaving the respondent alone with three unpredictable young women created a foreseeable risk of personal injury. The respondent acted reasonably and promptly in attempting to summon assistance before the care staff left the vicinity. Her conduct did not constitute contributory negligence, and the allegation was not pursued on appeal.
3. Foreseeability. The court distinguished Doughty v Turner Manufacturing [1964] 1 QB 518. That case concerned a different risk from the foreseeable risk which had not materialised. Here, the issue was whether liability arose when the respondent took reasonable action to end the risk. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 and Miller v South Scotland Electricity Board [1958] FC (HL) 20 supported the conclusion that the precise accident and precise chain of circumstances need not have been foreseeable. The same principle was reaffirmed in Robb v Salamis MMI Limited [2007] ICR at 175.
4. Causation. The fact that an attack did not occur, and that the injury arose while the respondent was attempting to remove the danger, did not break the causal connection. The injury was sufficiently connected with the risk created by the council’s breach, and the judge had applied the proper test.
5. The allegation concerning regulation 12(3) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 was unnecessary to decide.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): in [2011] EWCA Civ 1329, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay costs summarily assessed at £9,500 inclusive of VAT.
• Lincoln County Court: HHJ Jenkins, on 19 January 2011, held that the respondent was entitled to damages assessed at £16,432.51 for injuries sustained in the course of her employment.