This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Roles v Nathan (Trading As Manchester Assembly Rooms) [1963] 1 WLR 1117; [1963] 2 All ER 908

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 24/03/2024 15:29

Judgement for the case Roles v Nathan (Trading As Manchester Assembly Rooms)

KEY POINTS

  • "Occupiers' Liability" is a common duty of care that occupiers owe to individuals who enter their premises. This duty extends to ensuring a safe environment and preventing foreseeable harm. 

  • In cases involving the delegation of duty, such as employing sweeps to repair flues, occupiers must exercise due diligence in warning workers of potential dangers, especially when specialists advise on the risks associated with working in specific conditions.

  • The Occupiers' Liability Act of 1957 outlines the legal framework for such cases, emphasising the occupier's responsibility to be aware of the risks and take necessary precautions. 

  • Special risks ordinarily associated with the nature of the work, such as the calling of a sweep, must be considered when determining the occupier's duty of care. 

  • The Act, specifically sections 1 and 2, helps establish the legal parameters surrounding occupiers' liability and the knowledge visitors should possess regarding potential dangers.

FACTS

  • Herbert Nathan ("Defendant") owned assembly rooms heated by an old coke-burning boiler. The boiler posed inherent challenges due to its connection to a horizontal flue 70 feet long under the floor, leading to an 80-foot-high chimney.

    • On December 9, 1958, upon attempting to light the boiler, smoke entered the boiler room, prompting Defendant to seek professional advice.

    • A boiler engineer recommended cleaning the flues, leading to the engagement of two brothers, who were chimney sweeps. After the initial cleaning, when the boiler was reignited on December 10, a significant amount of smoke escaped again.

    • Concerned about the safety of the boiler room, Defendant sought the expertise of a second boiler expert, C.

      • On December 11, C. deemed the boiler room dangerous and ordered everyone to evacuate. 

      • C. forcibly removed the sweeps, inspected the flue and chimney, and directed that the inspection chamber and the sweep hole be sealed before relighting the boiler.

      • He reiterated the danger of fumes from the boiler to the sweeps.

  • Despite these warnings, on the evening of December 12, the defendant's agent found the boiler alight, with the sweeps working to complete their task, but they had not sealed the sweep hole due to insufficient cement.

    • The sweeps expressed their intention to return on Saturday, but unknown circumstances led them to return that night, ultimately resulting in their tragic deaths in the boiler room by Saturday morning.

  • In the subsequent legal proceedings, the widows of the deceased chimney sweeps claimed damages under the Fatal Accidents Acts and the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1939. 

JUDGEMENT

  • In the judgment, it was held (with Pearson L.J. dissenting) that, considering all the circumstances, the warning given to the sweeps was deemed "sufficient to enable the sweeps to be reasonably safe" within the meaning of section 2(4) of the Occupiers' Liability Act, 1957.

  • According to Denning M.R., when a householder enlists the services of a specialist to address a faulty installation on their premises, the householder can reasonably anticipate that the specialist will comprehend and mitigate dangers arising from the defect.

  • In this case, the occupier was found not to have a duty of care towards the two sweeps, at least concerning the dangers that led to their unfortunate deaths.

  • Consequently, Elwes J.'s decision was reversed.

COMMENTARY

  • This case explores "Occupiers' Liability,” showing the duty property owners owe to visitors for a safe environment.

    • In the case of Herbert Nathan's assembly rooms and two chimney sweeps' tragic deaths, warnings and efforts were made to address a faulty boiler.

    • Legal proceedings ensued, with the judgment, albeit with a dissenting opinion, deeming the warning sufficient under the Occupiers' Liability Act of 1957. 

  • The court held that the property owner had no duty of care concerning the specific dangers leading to the sweeps' deaths, ultimately reversing the initial decision by Elwes J.

  • This case highlights the complex interplay between occupiers' liability, specialist roles, and the duty of care in unique circumstances.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

  • Plaintiff’s husband, X, was a chimney sweep called to clean Defendant’s chimney.

  • An expert on site warned the sweep not to continue work until certain safety precautions had been taken. X ignored this and died.

  • CA denied Plaintiff a claim under the 1957 Act. 

Lord Denning MR

  • He states the definition of the “common duty of care” in s.2(2) and the fact that, under s.2(3), the danger here is caused in the exercise of X’s calling and is “ordinarily incidental” to the purpose of the visit and therefore, within s.2(3) Defendant is entitled to reasonably expect that X will appreciate and guard against the danger (they were warned about it).

  • Therefore no duty of care, regarding the danger concerned with the chimney, was owed.

  • This would not be the case if the danger was not “ordinarily incidental,” e.g. if the sweeps had fallen through a faulty stair case.

  • Given that X was warned about the danger, it was for him to alleviate himself of the danger, not for Defendant.

  • EVEN if there had been a duty of care the claim would have failed, since, within s.2(4) the warning given, alone, was enough to render the visitor (X) “reasonably safe”.

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on Roles v Nathan (Trading As Manchester Assembly Rooms)

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started

Related Product Samples

These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.

Claim every advantage to get a first in law
Tort Law Notes
1,070 total pages
845 purchased

Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...