Roles v Nathan [1963] 1 W.L.R. 1117
Facts
D owned assembly rooms heated by a coke burning boiler. On 9th December 1958, smoke flowed into the boiler room after the boiler was lit. A boiler engineer advised that the flues needed cleaning and C (two brothers) were hired to clean them. Despite being cleaned, smoke escaped again the next day. On 11th December D called in a second expert. He ordered everyone out of the boiler room. C ignored his order. The expert had removed C by force. The expert instructed that the inspection chamber and the sweep hole should be sealed up before the boiler was lit. He gave C another warning of the danger of fumes. The following day, D’s agent went to the boiler room and found the boiler alight. C had nearly finished cleaning but had not sealed the sweep hole due to lacking cement. C said that they would return the next day.
Legal Issue
- Had D discharged their duty of care to C under the Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 by giving repeated warnings of the danger of fumes?
Held
The Court of Appeal majority rejected the claim. The danger arose from fumes encountered in the chimney sweeps' specialist work, and they had received repeated warnings about working while the boiler was alight. The majority considered that the occupier could reasonably expect them to appreciate and guard against that occupational risk. Under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, a warning is sufficient only if it enables reasonable safety in the circumstances; its existence alone does not discharge responsibility. Pearson LJ dissented over the occupier's part in creating the danger. The decision therefore concerns the particular risk, expertise and warnings, not a complete immunity whenever a visitor is a tradesperson.
⭐ Legal Principle
An occupier may expect specialists to guard against risks ordinarily incidental to their work, provided they are left free to do so. Warnings must be sufficient to enable reasonable safety in the circumstances. Roles does not remove responsibility for unrelated premises hazards or every risk facing a contractor.
Significance
Roles applies both the specialist-visitor provision and the warning provision of the 1957 Act. The chimney sweeps' expertise mattered because the danger was one associated with the work they came to perform. A defective staircase would raise a different issue. Pearson LJ's dissent also shows why an occupier's own role in creating danger cannot simply be ignored. An examination answer should connect the warning and expected expertise to the precise hazard, rather than count warnings as an automatic defence.
Common exam questions about this case
Why was the sweeps' professional expertise relevant?
The dangerous fumes were associated with the specialist work they had undertaken. The occupier could reasonably expect them to recognise and guard against such a risk, provided they were free to do so. That reasoning does not apply automatically to a danger unrelated to their calling.
Does giving a warning always discharge the occupier's duty?
No. Section 2(4)(a) requires assessment of whether the warning was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe in the circumstances. In Roles the majority considered the warnings adequate in light of the specialist work. A warning that cannot practically protect the visitor may be insufficient.
Why is a collapsing staircase a useful contrast?
A staircase collapsing under a visiting specialist may involve an ordinary premises defect rather than a risk incidental to chimney sweeping. The occupier cannot assume the visitor's trade equips them to guard against every hazard. Identify the actual danger before relying on the specialist-visitor reasoning in Roles.