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

A steel erector died after falling from a tower when not wearing a safety belt. His employers had failed to provide one, but evidence showed he had never worn safety belts when available. The House of Lords held that the breach of duty did not cause his death, as he would not have worn the belt even if provided.

Facts

William McWilliams, an experienced steel erector employed by the first respondents, fell approximately seventy feet to his death while erecting a steel tower crane in a shipyard occupied by the second respondents. At the time of the accident, he was not wearing a safety belt. Safety belts had been available at the site until two or three days before the accident when they were removed to another site. The appellant, McWilliams’ widow, claimed damages against both respondents, alleging negligence at common law against the first respondents and breach of statutory duty under section 26(2) of the Factories Act 1937 against the second respondents.

Evidence Regarding Safety Belt Usage

Evidence demonstrated that throughout the period of work on the tower, safety belts had been available in a nearby hut, yet McWilliams had not worn one. Multiple witnesses with extensive experience in structural steel operations testified that steel erectors never wore safety belts except in very special circumstances, and none had seen McWilliams or other steel erectors wear belts during such work. Steel erectors regarded belts as cumbersome and potentially dangerous.

Issues

The principal issues before the House of Lords were:

• Whether the failure to provide a safety belt was causally connected to McWilliams’ death
• Whether the burden of proof lay on the appellant to show he would have worn a belt or on the respondents to show he would not
• Whether evidence of past conduct and general practice was admissible to determine what the deceased would have done
• Whether employers had a duty to instruct or exhort employees to wear safety belts

Judgment

Causation

The House of Lords unanimously held that the appellant failed to establish the necessary causal connection between the breach of duty and the death. Lord Reid explained the analysis:

“The immediate cause of the deceased’s death was the fact that at the time of the fall he was not wearing a safety belt. The cause or reason why he was not wearing a safety belt may have been the fact that one was not provided, but the failure to provide operates only through the failure to wear.”

Lord Devlin articulated the chain of causation required:

“The immediate cause of the deceased’s death was that at the time of the fall he was not wearing a safety belt; but for the fault of his employers, he would have been wearing a safety belt: therefore the fault of his employers was an effective cause of his death. So stated, it is plain that the reason why the deceased was not wearing a safety belt must be a proper subject for inquiry.”

Burden of Proof

The House rejected the appellant’s argument that employers could not adduce evidence that the deceased would not have worn a safety belt. Viscount Kilmuir LC stated:

“Counsel for the appellant was not able to suggest to us a principle of law which would not only place the onus of establishing that the breach of duty was not the cause of the accident on the employers but also, in Lord Guest’s words, would preclude the employers from doing so.”

Admissibility of Evidence of Past Conduct

The House held that evidence of the deceased’s past conduct and general practice among steel erectors was admissible and highly relevant. Lord Reid stated:

“It appears to me to be a natural, and indeed almost inevitable, inference that he would not have worn a safety belt on this occasion, even if it had been available.”

Duty to Instruct

The House held there was no duty on employers to instruct or exhort skilled workers to wear safety belts. Viscount Kilmuir LC quoted Lord Radcliffe from Qualcast (Wolverhampton) Ltd v Haynes:

“The Courts should be circumspect in filling out that duty with the much vaguer obligation of encouraging, exhorting or instructing workmen or a particular workman to make regular use of what is provided.”

Implications

This case established important principles regarding causation in employer’s liability claims:

• A claimant must prove not only breach of duty but also that the breach caused the damage suffered
• Where safety equipment is not provided, it remains open to employers to prove the employee would not have used it anyway
• Evidence of past conduct and general practice is admissible to establish what a deceased would have done in hypothetical circumstances
• The case disapproved of contrary dicta in Roberts v Dorman Long & Co Ltd

The decision reinforced the fundamental principle from Wardlaw v Bonnington Castings Ltd that causation must always be established in negligence claims, whether based on common law or statutory duty.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed. The House of Lords held that although the respondents were in breach of their duty to provide safety belts, this breach did not cause the deceased's death because the evidence established that he would not have worn a safety belt even if one had been provided.

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