Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405

A galvaniser suffered a burn on his lip from molten zinc due to his employer's negligence. The burn triggered cancer in pre-disposed tissue, causing his death three years later. The court held the employer liable for the full consequences, establishing the eggshell skull rule in negligence.

Facts

The defendant company employed the claimant as a galvaniser whose duties included using a crane to lift metal items and immerse them into a tank of molten zinc. While performing these duties, an object spattered from the tank and burned him on the lip. This burn acted as the ‘promoting agent’ of a cancer from which the claimant died three years later. The employer’s negligence in respect of the burn was not disputed. However, the claimant had a pre-existing predisposition to cancer in his skin tissue. The central legal question was whether the cancer and subsequent death were too remote from the original negligent act for compensation to be awarded.

Issues

Remoteness of Damage

The key issue was whether the defendant could be held liable for the full extent of the harm caused, including the cancer and death, when the claimant had a pre-existing vulnerability that made the damage more severe than it would otherwise have been.

Judgment

The court held that the defendants had been negligent and were liable for damages. Lord Parker delivered the judgment, establishing the principle that a tortfeasor must take their victim as they find them.

If a man is negligently run over… it is no answer to the sufferer’s claim for damages that he would have suffered less injury… if he had not had an unusually thin skull or an unusually weak heart

The ratio decidendi established that a tortfeasor is liable for negligent damage even when the claimant had a predisposition that made that damage more severe than it otherwise would have been. This principle became known as the ‘eggshell skull rule’ or ‘talem qualem rule’.

Implications

This case is a landmark authority in English tort law, firmly establishing the eggshell skull rule. The key implications include:

• The strict liability approach now applies specifically to personal injury cases
• For damage to property claims, the claimant must demonstrate that the loss was foreseeable
• For economic loss claims, an ‘assumption of responsibility’ must typically be proven

The case has been cited and applied in numerous subsequent cases including Tremain v Pike, Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets Ltd, Robinson v Post Office, and Brice v Brown. It represents a significant development in the law of negligence, ensuring that defendants cannot escape liability by pointing to a claimant’s pre-existing vulnerabilities.

Verdict: The defendants were held liable for damages. The court found that the employer’s negligence caused the claimant’s death, and the pre-existing predisposition to cancer did not break the chain of causation or render the damage too remote.

Source: Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405