Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643 (HL)

Facts

Following heavy rain, flooding occurred in the defendant’s factory. Water mixed with factory oil created a slippery surface. The employer spread sawdust over most of the affected areas but did not close the factory.

Mr Latimer slipped in an area that remained wet and was injured. He argued that the employer should have shut down the factory entirely to eliminate the risk.

---

Issue

Was the employer in breach of duty for failing to completely eliminate the risk by closing the factory?

---

Decision

The House of Lords held that the employer was not negligent. The defendant had taken reasonable steps to reduce the risk by spreading sawdust. The law does not require elimination of all risk — only reasonable precautions. Completely shutting the factory would have been a disproportionate response.

---

Legal Principle

The standard of care requires reasonable, not perfect, precautions. Courts consider the cost and practicality of preventing harm. If reasonable steps have been taken, the defendant will not be liable simply because some risk remains.

---

Importance

• Leading authority on practicality and cost in breach analysis.

• Illustrates the balancing exercise in determining reasonable care.

  
  

• Frequently cited in workplace and occupiers’ liability cases.

  
  

• Shows that negligence is not strict liability.