Smith v Leech Brain [1962] 2 QB 405:

KEY POINTS

• Damages in tort law compensate plaintiffs for harm caused by wrongful acts or negligence. They aim to restore the injured party to their pre-injury state. Remoteness and the Polemis rule determine liability, extending it to unforeseen consequences of foreseeable harm. 

• Personal injuries from employer negligence may lead to compensation claims.

  • Extending liability covers unforeseen outcomes like cancer from workplace burns. Fatal Accidents Acts allow compensation for death due to negligence.

  • Laches, a legal doctrine, addresses unreasonable delays in civil claims, considering fairness to both parties.

FACTS

• A galvanizer employed by Leech Brain & Co Ltd. ("Defendants") operated an overhead crane to lower items into a tank of molten metal.

  • He typically stood two feet from the tank and wore a corrugated iron shield to protect against splatters.

  • On August 15, 1950, he turned to check his work, exposing his head beyond the shield. A piece of molten metal struck his lower lip, causing a burn.

  • This burn later developed into cancer, leading to his death three years later.

  • Although the cancerous tissue had a pre-malignant condition, the burn was a significant contributing factor.

• Mrs. Mary Emma Smith ("His widow") sued the Defendants for damages, claiming their negligence caused the burn that led to his death.

• She filed under the Fatal Accidents Acts, of 1846-1908, and the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, of 1934. 

JUDGEMENT

• The court held that the Defendants were found to have been negligent because they failed to provide adequate protection for their worker who operated an overhead crane near molten metal.

  • The court held that any reasonable employer would have foreseen the risk of burns in this environment.

  • The court noted that a tortfeasor had to take their victim as they found them.

  • The central question was not whether the defendants could have foreseen that a burn might lead to cancer and death, but whether they could have foreseen the initial burn.

    • Since the cancer and death were a direct consequence of the burn, which was foreseeable, the Defendants were liable for the resulting damages.

• The court found the Defendants liable for the worker's death due to their negligence in providing sufficient protection against burns.

• The ruling marks that Defendants could not avoid liability simply because they did not predict the exact progression of events, as long as the initial injury was foreseeable.

COMMENTARY

• This case marks several principles in tort law, notably regarding the scope of employer liability, the concept of remoteness, and the application of the Polemis rule. 

• The judgment reinforces the notion that employers have a duty to anticipate and mitigate workplace hazards, particularly in environments where inherent risks are present, such as in this case with molten metal. The failure to provide adequate protective measures can lead to a finding of negligence.

• The court's decision reflects the broader doctrine that tortfeasors must take their victims as they find them, often referred to as the "eggshell skull" rule.

  • This principle marks that liability extends to all foreseeable harm resulting from the initial negligent act, even if the precise consequences—like the development of cancer—were not specifically foreseen.

  • Here, the question was whether the risk of burns was foreseeable, not the subsequent development of cancer.

• The judgment affirms the employer's liability for the worker's death, highlighting that negligence can lead to significant repercussions.

  • It extends the employer's responsibility to address not only immediate risks but also the long-term consequences of workplace injuries.

  • The Fatal Accidents Act provided the legal basis for the widow's claim, demonstrating the availability of recourse for families of deceased workers who suffered harm due to employer negligence.

• The judgment's emphasis on foreseeability in determining liability serves as a reminder to employers and others responsible for worker safety to proactively identify and mitigate risks.

  • It also shows that Defendants cannot escape liability simply because they did not anticipate the specific manner in which harm occurred, as long as the general type of harm was foreseeable.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

• Defendant was very susceptible to cancer because of previous employment and might have got cancer anyway. However one day he was working with molten metal for his employer, Plaintiff, with inadequate protection, and some molten metal landed on him, causing him to get cancer and die.

• Plaintiff’s widow sued.

• CA allowed Plaintiff’s widow’s claim for damages not just for the initial molten burn to Plaintiff, but also for Plaintiff’s death.  

Parker CJ

• Tortfeasors have to take their victims as they find them.

• They are liable for the damage provided that that type of damage was reasonably foreseeable. The burn was reasonably foreseeable, but Defendant is also liable for the damage that the burn did to the victim, regardless of whether the extent of the damage was foreseeable. 

RELATED CASES

• Lagden v O'Connor

• Re Polemis