McWilliams v Sir William Arrol & Co Ltd [1961] UKHL 8

A steel erector died after falling 70 feet. His employer breached its statutory duty by not providing a safety belt. However, the employer was not held liable as evidence showed the deceased would not have worn a belt anyway, thus breaking the causal link.

Facts

The case concerned a fatal accident involving an experienced steel erector, Hugh McWilliams, who fell 70 feet to his death while working for the defenders, Sir William Arrol & Co Ltd, on the construction of the Forth Road Bridge. The defenders were in breach of Regulation 94 of the Building (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations, 1948, as they had failed to provide safety belts for their workers. The action for damages was brought by the deceased’s widow, the pursuer.

Issues

The central legal issue was one of causation. The key question before the court was whether the defenders’ admitted breach of their statutory duty (the failure to provide a safety belt) was the cause of Mr McWilliams’s death. Specifically, the court had to determine, on the balance of probabilities, whether the deceased would have worn a safety belt had one been made available to him.

Judgment

The House of Lords unanimously dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgment of the First Division of the Court of Session. The court held that the pursuer had failed to establish a causal link between the employers’ breach of duty and the death of her husband.

Reasoning of the Court

The court’s decision rested on the finding of fact that the deceased would not have used a safety belt even if one had been supplied. There was substantial evidence that steel erectors at that time, including the deceased himself on previous occasions, very rarely used safety belts, finding them cumbersome and believing them to hinder movement and create other risks.

The Law Lords established that a pursuer must prove not only a breach of duty but also that the breach caused the injury. As Viscount Kilmuir L.C. stated:

In my opinion, the pursuer in an action for damages for breach of a statutory duty is in exactly the same position as a pursuer in an action for damages for common law negligence, in so far as he or she must prove not only the breach but also that the breach caused the injury.

Lord Reid further clarified the point on causation:

The defenders’ fault was that they did not provide a safety belt. That was a breach of duty. But it is now well settled that an employer is not liable to a workman merely because the employer has been in breach of a statutory duty. The workman must prove that the breach of duty caused or materially contributed to his injury.

The burden of proof lay on the pursuer to show that the failure to provide the belt caused the death. The court concluded that this burden had not been discharged. Lord Devlin commented on this burden:

If the employer’s fault is a failure to provide some piece of equipment, the pursuer must prove that that piece of equipment would have been used… this cannot be said to have been proved in this case. Accordingly the pursuer fails on causation.

Therefore, since it was found that the deceased would have disregarded the safety belt, its absence could not be considered the cause of his death. The ‘but for’ test was not satisfied; the accident would have occurred regardless of the employers’ breach.

Implications

This case is a landmark judgment on the principle of causation within both the law of delict/tort and for breach of statutory duty. It firmly establishes that proving a defendant’s fault or breach of duty is insufficient on its own to establish liability. The claimant must go further and prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the harm suffered was a direct result of that breach. The decision solidifies the application of the ‘but for’ test, meaning a defendant will not be liable if the damage would have occurred even if they had not been in breach of their duty. It highlights that the burden of proving the entire causal chain, from breach to damage, rests with the claimant.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed; the defenders were held not to be liable.

Source: McWilliams v Sir William Arrol & Co Ltd [1961] UKHL 8