Heaven v. Pender

Heaven v Pender (1883) 11 QBD 503, Court of Appeal) was an English legal case.

The case occurred when an owner of a dry dock supplied ropes which supported a stage slung over the side of a ship. The stage failed owing to the ropes having been previously burned. The failure of the stage injured an employee of an independent contractor working in the dry dock. In the Court of Appeal, the Master of the Rolls Brett MR suggested that there was a wider duty to be responsible in tort to those who might be injured if ‘ordinary care and skill’ was not exercised. The House of Lords was content to decide the case on the basis a duty of care was owed by an occupier of land (the owner of the dry dock) to invitees (the employees of the contractor who were on the site to the economic benefit ultimately of the dry dock owner).

Brett MR's dissenting minority views would later be expressly adopted by Lord Atkin in the House of Lords in "Donoghue v Stevenson" when the general concept of a tortious duty of care in negligence was established under English law. [ [http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/donoghue.htm Donoghue v Stevenson, UK Law Online ] ]

Footnotes