Muir v Glasgow Corporation [1943] UKHL 2 (16 April 1943)

Children were scalded when a tea urn was dropped in a narrow passage at a tea room managed by the Corporation. The House of Lords held that the manageress could not reasonably have foreseen the accident occurring from permitting the urn to be carried through, and thus no negligence was established.

Facts

On 15th June 1940, a church party obtained permission from Mrs Alexander, manageress of tea rooms operated by Glasgow Corporation in King’s Park, to use the premises for eating their own tea. Two members of the church party, McDonald and Taylor, carried a tea urn through a narrow passage where approximately twelve children were congregated at a sweet counter. For unexplained reasons, McDonald released his handle, causing the urn to tip and scalding tea to injure six children.

The Tea Urn and Passage

The urn was approximately 16 inches high, 15 inches in diameter, and contained no more than two-thirds of its nine-gallon capacity. The passage narrowed to 3 feet 3 inches at its narrowest point. The carriers asked the children to stand aside and proceeded in single file.

Issues

The central issue was whether Mrs Alexander, as the Corporation’s representative, breached a duty of care owed to the children by permitting the tea urn to be carried through the passage without taking additional precautions such as clearing the children from the passageway.

Judgment

The House of Lords unanimously allowed the appeal and restored the Lord Ordinary’s decision to absolve the Corporation.

Standard of Care

Lord Thankerton stated that the duty is to take reasonable care to avoid the risk of injury to persons who might reasonably be foreseen to be injured by failure to exercise such care. He emphasised that only reasonable and probable consequences need be foreseen.

Lord Macmillan articulated the test:

“The duty to take care is the duty to avoid doing or omitting to do anything the doing or omitting to do which may have as its reasonable and probable consequence injury to others, and the duty is owed to those to whom injury may reasonably and probably be anticipated if the duty is not observed.”

Application to Facts

The Lords held that the tea urn was not inherently dangerous and could be safely carried by two responsible persons exercising ordinary care. Mrs Alexander was entitled to assume the urn would be carefully handled. The cause of McDonald releasing the handle remained unexplained, and without knowing the cause, it was impossible to determine whether it was reasonably foreseeable.

Lord Wright observed:

“Some things are obviously and necessarily dangerous unless the danger is removed by appropriate precautions. These are things dangerous per se. Other things are only dangerous if there is negligence.”

He concluded the tea urn fell into the latter category.

Implications

This case is a leading authority on the standard of care in negligence, establishing that liability depends on what a reasonable person would have foreseen as a natural and probable consequence of their conduct. The decision confirms that defendants are not insurers against all possible accidents and that hindsight wisdom should not be used to judge what precautions were reasonable at the time. The case also clarifies that where the cause of an accident is unknown, it is impossible to establish that the materialised risk was one that should reasonably have been contemplated.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. The House of Lords restored the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor absolving Glasgow Corporation from liability, finding no breach of duty established as the accident was not reasonably foreseeable.

Source: Muir v Glasgow Corporation [1943] UKHL 2 (16 April 1943)