Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company [1964] 1 QB 518

A factory worker was injured when an asbestos-cement lid fell into molten liquid, causing an unforeseeable chemical eruption. The Court of Appeal held the injury was too remote as the eruption was not foreseeable, distinguishing it from mere splashing which was a different class of harm.

Facts

A factory worker was lowering a lid with an asbestos-cement lining onto a cauldron containing hot acidic liquid. The worker accidentally knocked the lid into the liquid. Shortly afterwards, a violent eruption occurred, causing serious burns to the claimant who was standing some distance away from the cauldron. It was unknown to anyone at the time that the asbestos-cement lining had become saturated with moisture from atmospheric water-vapour. The accident occurred when the water contained within the lid turned to steam and caused the eruption.

Issues

The key legal issue was whether the injury suffered by the claimant was too remote to be recoverable in negligence. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the eruption fell within a foreseeable class of harm, given that splashing from the liquid might have been foreseeable when the lid fell into the cauldron.

Claimant’s Argument

The claimant argued that the concept of ‘class of harm’ as established in Hughes v Lord Advocate should apply. While the eruption itself may not have been foreseeable, splashing was foreseeable, and an eruption should be considered within the same class of harm as splashing.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal denied the claimant a remedy, holding that the injury was too remote. Applying the dictum from The Wagon Mound No. 1, the court distinguished between the foreseeable risk of splashing and the unforeseeable risk of eruption.

The court rejected the claimant’s argument that eruption and splashing fell within the same class of harm. It held that splashing was a physical displacement of liquid, whereas an eruption was a chemical reaction caused by the unknown property of the asbestos-cement reacting with heat. These were fundamentally different types of events and therefore not within the same class of harm.

Implications of the Decision

The consequence of this decision was that an innocent worker injured at work had no redress against his employer, despite the following considerations:

• Employers are normally vicariously liable for torts committed by employees acting in the course and scope of their employment
• The employer had third-party liability insurance capable of meeting any claim
• The employer had both common law and statutory duties to provide a safe place of work

Implications

This case is notable for its restrictive interpretation of the ‘foreseeable class of harm’ principle established in Hughes v Lord Advocate. The court was arguably anxious not to revert to the strict liability approach of Re Polemis (1921), and therefore applied a narrower test for remoteness of damage. The decision demonstrates the courts’ reluctance to extend liability beyond harms that were directly foreseeable, even where an employee was injured in circumstances where some form of injury from the defendant’s negligence was anticipated.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed. The claimant’s injury was held to be too remote as the eruption was not a foreseeable type of harm, and therefore the defendant was not liable in negligence.

Source: Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company [1964] 1 QB 518