Hobbs Farms Ltd v Baxenden Chemical Co [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 54

D manufactured foam insulation and provided technical trade information to suppliers that it was ‘self-extinguishing.’ C, a farmer, rented out a hanger located just a few feet from their barn to a tenant (C2). This hangar had been fitted with D’s foam by a contractor. The contractor relied on D’s information to assert that the foam would not be flammable when installing the foam between 1977 and 1980. However, by 1974, D had knowledge that this information was inaccurate. When an employee in the barn was using a grinding machine, a spark fell on flammable material that the employee had negligently failed to move. The fire spread to the hangar and the foam proved to be highly flammable. The entire hangar was engulfed in flames. In response to C2 suing for negligence and under Rylands v Fletcher, C sued D on the grounds for negligent misinformation and breach of warranty.

• Was D liable for negligent misstatement if they only became aware of the defect after the foam had been sold?
• Was C liable to C2 for the spread of the fire despite being misled as to the highly flammable nature of the foam?

Finding for C, that describing the foam as self-extinguishing was inaccurate and misleading. It was foreseeable to D that statements made to contractors would be passed onto customers who could suffer loss by relying on such statements. Since D realised that failing to warn past customers like C might result in them suffering injury, D’s duty of care extended to taking reasonable steps to warn them. D was therefore liable to C, but C was contributorily negligent due to their employee’s carelessness in using the grinding machine. Finding for C2, that C’s employee had acted negligently by not moving the flammable material before using the grinding machine. Even if C believed the foam would mitigate the damage, the risk of fire should have been avoided entirely. C’s negligence had led to the fire escaping from C’s barn to the hanger. As such C was liable under both negligence and the Rylands v Fletcher rule.

A manufacturer's negligence responsibilities may continue after supply when it learns that earlier safety information is misleading and that customers face injury. Reasonable steps to warn may then be required. A customer's own careless handling of fire risks can remain relevant to contributory negligence.

Hobbs Farms illustrates the continuing significance of product information after a sale. The manufacturer could not assume its responsibilities ended once foam had been supplied, especially where its description was relied on through an intermediary. The case also separates the misleading statement from the claimant's own creation of the fire risk. Current use of its Rylands discussion requires the later Cambridge Water and Transco restrictions to be considered; the warning principle should not obscure those developments.