## Facts

- The claimant, an employee of Robinson Rentals Ltd, was assigned to assist a colleague with a vehicle repair requiring a long journey of approximately 450 to 500 miles, taking around 20 hours.
- The journey took place in January during severe winter weather conditions.
- Both vehicles used for the journey were without functioning heating.
- The claimant, despite dressing warmly, suffered frostbite as a result of prolonged exposure to the cold.
- Frostbite is a rare injury in England, but the employer was aware of the severe weather and the lack of heating in the vehicles.

## Issues

1. Whether Robinson Rentals Ltd owed a duty of care to the claimant in assigning the journey under severe weather conditions without vehicle heating.
2. Whether it was necessary for the precise injury (frostbite) to be foreseeable, or whether foreseeability of the general type of harm (injury from cold exposure) was sufficient to establish negligence.
3. Whether the employer’s actions, given the circumstances, constituted a breach of the duty of care.

## Decision

- The court held that a reasonably prudent employer would have foreseen the risk of injury arising from exposure to cold when sending an employee on an extended journey in unheated vehicles during severe winter weather.
- It was not necessary that the specific injury of frostbite be foreseen; foreseeability of the general class of harm (cold-related injury) sufficed.
- The employer was found negligent for failing to provide heated vehicles or otherwise protect the claimant from foreseeable harm.
- The court relied on the principle from Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] 1 All ER 705, confirming that the precise manner of injury need not be contemplated, only the general kind of injury.

## Legal Principles

- Foreseeability in negligence relates to the type or class of harm that a reasonable person would anticipate, not the exact manner in which it occurs.
- The test for foreseeability is objective, based on what a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have foreseen, rather than the defendant’s subjective viewpoint.
- Employers have a duty to provide a safe working environment and to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable risks in the workplace.
- Liability in negligence does not require anticipation of every possible consequence, only those within a foreseeable category of harm.

## Conclusion

Bradford v Robinson Rentals Ltd clarified that liability in negligence arises when the general kind of harm is foreseeable, regardless of the rare or unusual manner of its occurrence. The case emphasizes the objective test of foreseeability and reinforces the employer’s duty to protect employees from foreseeable risks, setting a significant precedent for negligence claims in tort law.


Bradford v Robinson Rentals Ltd [1967] 1 All ER 267