J U D G M E N T

1
These proceedings arose from an injury which the claimant suffered shortly after arriving for a lunch on the premises of Ray Gatwick, a sandwich seller. He slipped on some crumbs which had been left on the floor, causing an injury to his elbow. Mr. Gatwick later explained to him that he was unable to sweep the floor completely clean as the grass brush which he had bought for the purpose always left a few scraps behind. The claimant thus began proceedings against the defendant, the company which sold the brush.

2
Her Honour Judge Leary heard the case in the Midshire County Court on 14th May 2006 and took the view that the injury was attributable in whole or in part to the negligence of the defendant and that Mr. McBride’s injury was a sufficiently foreseeable consequence of their act or omission to create a liability.

3
To establish liability:

   (1) the defendant must owe a duty of care and,
   (2) cause an injury by breaching that duty.

The judge considered Bolton v. Stone, the “cricket ball” case - where the club was held not liable because a reasonable man could not have anticipated that a ball going over the fence would injure a person in the street outside.

4
In her judgement, the judge noted that there may have been contributory negligence on the part of Ray Gatwick but that this could not break the chain of causation or reduce the foreseeability of the injury to Mr. McBride.

5
The first ground of appeal is that the judge did not address Mr. West’s argument on behalf of the defendant that the use of the brush by Mr. Gatwick was an “intervening act” as in Leisbosch Dredger v. Edison (1933) capable of breaking the chain of causation.

The second ground of appeal is that the Wagon Mound test of remoteness should have been applied.

6
In answer to these submissions, Mr Float for the respondent says that in the decision of the Privy Council in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd. (The Wagon Mound) [1961] A.C. 388 the reasonably foreseeable consequences of an act may extend further in situations where the duty of care has a wider scope.

7
I do not think Mr. Float is right. In the Wagon Mound case, Viscount Simonds held, at pp 422 - 423:      "a man must be considered to be responsible for the probable consequences of his act.” I am not persuaded that the duty of care can be widened because of what we may presume about the knowledge of a manufacturer or designer of a particular product.

8
The grounds of the appeal are made out and for the reasons I have given, I would allow this appeal.

9
ORDER: appeal allowed; claim dismissed; no order as to costs.