Employees used a short cut to reach premises occupied by their employer, the second defendants. The short cut crossed various railway lines, on premises belonging to the first defendants. While she was using the short cut, the plaintiff was struck by trucks that were being shunted on one of the railway lines. She sued both the first defendants and her employer, the second defendants. It had been argued that an employer’s responsibility for the safety of his employees only began when employees entered his premises.
Held: That duty was not restricted to access over the employer’s own property, or property under his control, but may extend to access over other property.
Singleton LJ held that the risk to the plaintiff was obvious, and nothing that the employer could have done would have made it more obvious. He pointed out that the plaintiff was aware that shunting operations were carried on; consequently a warning of the danger would not have been of any help to her.
Jenkins LJ said that it could not be said that the short cut was not reasonably safe. It had been used by employees for a matter of twenty years, and for five months by the plaintiff, and this was the first accident that had ever happened.
Parker LJ held that there was no duty to warn the plaintiff of the danger of crossing the railway lines, because such danger was patent and well known to her. He further held that, because the short cut had been used by employees for twenty years without an accident, there was no reason that the employer should have foreseen the danger in shunting operations.
Judges:
Jenkins LJ, Parker LJ, Singleton LJ
Citations:
[1957] 1 QB 409
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Ashdown v Samuel Williams and Sons Ltd QBD 1956
The plaintiff sought damages after being hit when, on her way into work taking a short cut across a stockyard, she was hit.
Held: Havers J, having referred to the employer’s duty in respect of access where the place of work abuts a highway, . .
Cited by:
Cited – White v Blackmore CA 15-Jun-1972
The plaintiff attended a jalopy car race and was injured. It was a condition of his entry that he agreed that motor racing was dangerous and that he would not hold the organisers or others responsible if injured. He was injured when a safety rope, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Negligence
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.650949