Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Haley v London Electricity Board

[1965] AC 778

Case summary last updated at 19/01/2020 11:50 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Haley v London Electricity Board

R was digging up a pavement and laid a punner-hammer across the entrance to that section to prevent people walking onto that section of the pavement. A blind man walked onto that area, having missed the punner hammer and fell, leaving him deaf. HL said that R had a duty of care to all pedestrians to warn them about going onto the area, including blind pedestrians. R would have been entitled to assume that a blind person would take reasonable care of themselves e.g. by using a stick (i.e. if they had put up a proper barrier that the stick would touch then they would have discharged their responsibilities). 
Lord Reid: In determining what is reasonably foreseeable, some “common knowledge” has to be assumed e.g. that blind people exist and walk on pavements (even if R did not foresee a blind person walking along at the brief period where the pavement was left dug up). 

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Tort Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious academic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Tort Law Notes

Tort Law Notes >>