Our phone lines are closed Monday 27th May. You can still place your order online as usual.

Haley v London Electricity Board – 1965

327 words (1 pages) Case Summary in Cases

07/03/18 Cases Reference this

Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Parallelewelten.net.

If you would like to view samples of the work produced by our academic writers please click here.

Haley v London Electricity Board [1965] AC 778

TORT – NEGLIGENCE – FACTORS RELEVANT TO BREACH OF DUTY

Facts

The defendant’s employees dug a hole in a pavement. When they left the area on their break, they realised that they had not been provided with the necessary materials to fence off the area. They thought it would be sufficient to leave an upright shovel near the hole as a warning to any pedestrians who passed through. The claimant, however, was blind and so did not see the warning. As a result, he fell into the pit and sustained injuries.

Issue

Establishing the tort of negligence involves establishing that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, which they breached in a manner which caused the claimant recoverable harm. To establish a breach of any duty owed, the claimant must establish that the defendant failed to act as a reasonable person would in their position.

The issue was whether the defendant was in breach of their duty, given that they argued that they had taken sufficient steps to enable normally-sighted people to be safe. They argued that it was not foreseeable that a blind person would enter the area without assistance.

Held

The defendant was held to be in breach of their duty of care.

The extent to which the harm was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s actions was indeed a crucial factor when determining how a reasonable person would behave in the circumstances.

However, the court was not convinced that it was unforeseeable that a blind person would walk down the street. If it was sufficiently foreseeable that a disabled person would be at risk of harm, the court held, the defendant was obliged to take reasonable steps to protect them from harm, not just able-bodied persons.

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please.

Current Offers