Baker v TE Hopkins & Son Ltd [1959] EWCA Civ 4 (24 July 1959)

Baker v TE Hopkins & Son Ltd [1959] EWCA Civ 4 (24 July 1959)

The employer was negligent in creating a highly dangerous system of work and failed to provide adequate warning of the lethal risk. The deaths of the employees and the rescuer were a foreseeable consequence of that negligence. The warning given was insufficient to discharge the employer's duty of care. The rescue attempt was a natural and probable result of the peril created, and neither novus actus interveniens nor volenti non fit injuria applied. Ward was contributorily negligent to the extent of 10%.

Citation
[1959] EWCA Civ 4
Parties
Appellant/defendant: T. E. Hopkins & Son Ltd.; Respondent/plaintiff: Executors of Dr. Baker; Respondent/plaintiff: Ward (deceased)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 1959
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Employer's Duty of Care, Rescue Doctrine, Contributory Negligence, Volenti Non Fit Injuria, Novus Actus Interveniens
Tort Law Employment Law Negligence Employer's Duty of Care Rescue Doctrine Contributory Negligence Volenti Non Fit Injuria Novus Actus Interveniens

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T. E. Hopkins & Son Ltd.

Appellant/defendant

Executors of Dr. Baker

Respondent/plaintiff

Ward (deceased)

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer (Hopkins & Son Ltd.) was negligent in creating a dangerous system of work resulting in the deaths of employees and a rescuer.
  2. 2 Whether the employer's warning to employees was sufficient to discharge its duty of care.
  3. 3 Whether the actions of the rescuer (Dr. Baker) constituted a novus actus interveniens or volenti non fit injuria.

Ratio Decidendi

The employer was negligent in creating a highly dangerous system of work and failed to provide adequate warning of the lethal risk. The deaths of the employees and the rescuer were a foreseeable consequence of that negligence. The warning given was insufficient to discharge the employer's duty of care. The rescue attempt was a natural and probable result of the peril created, and neither novus actus interveniens nor volenti non fit injuria applied. Ward was contributorily negligent to the extent of 10%.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiffs/respondents in both actions.
  • Damages to be apportioned in Ward's case with a 10% reduction for contributory negligence.