Haley v London Electricity Board [1965] AC 778 (HL)

Facts

The defendant electricity board dug a trench in a pavement to carry out works. A hammer was placed across the trench as a warning. The claimant, Mr Haley, was blind and walking along the pavement using a white stick. He did not detect the warning and fell into the trench, suffering injury.

The defendants argued that blindness was statistically rare and that they were not required to take precautions for such an unusual circumstance.

---

Issue

Should the standard of care account for foreseeable harm to blind pedestrians, even if they represent a small proportion of the public?

---

Decision

The House of Lords held that the defendant was negligent. Although blind pedestrians were a minority, it was reasonably foreseeable that blind people used the pavement. The risk of serious injury required greater precautions, such as barriers rather than a simple warning.

---

Legal Principle

Foreseeability includes harm to reasonably foreseeable classes of persons, even if they are a minority. Courts consider both the probability of harm and the seriousness of potential injury.

A low statistical probability does not automatically negate breach if the risk is real and foreseeable.

---

Importance

• Contrasts with Bolton v Stone: although the class was small, harm to blind pedestrians was foreseeable.

• Reinforces that defendants must consider vulnerable groups who are likely to encounter the risk.

• Key authority on magnitude of risk and foreseeability in breach analysis.