## Facts

- Doughty worked at Turner Manufacturing’s factory, where cauldrons contained very hot/molten acidic liquid.
- During routine work, a lid with an asbestos-cement lining was being lowered onto a cauldron and was accidentally knocked or dropped into the molten contents.
- There was no immediate splash and no one was injured when the lid entered the cauldron.
- About one to two minutes later, a violent eruption (explosion) occurred, ejecting molten liquid from the cauldron.
- Doughty, standing some distance away, suffered serious burns from the expelled liquid.
- The later scientific explanation was that moisture absorbed in the asbestos-cement lining turned into steam when immersed, triggering a reaction that caused the eruption.
- It was accepted on appeal that, at the time, neither the employer nor the industry reasonably could have foreseen that immersion of an asbestos-cement lid would produce an eruption of this kind.

## Issues

1. Whether the employer was liable in negligence for burn injuries caused by a delayed eruption of molten liquid when only a simple splash injury was arguably foreseeable.
2. Whether the eruption-related burns were damage of a foreseeable “kind” (or within a foreseeable class of harm) or were too remote.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial judgment for the claimant and entered judgment for the employer.
- The court held the injuries were too remote because an eruption caused by the asbestos-cement reaction was not reasonably foreseeable.
- Even if a splash causing scalding was foreseeable, the delayed violent eruption was treated as a different kind of occurrence leading to a different kind of damage for remoteness purposes.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is liable in negligence only for damage of a kind that was reasonably foreseeable; unforeseeable kinds of damage are too remote.
- Foreseeability of some harm (e.g., splashing) does not necessarily make liability extend to harm produced by a materially different event (e.g., a chemical/steam eruption) not reasonably foreseeable.
- When assessing “kind” or “class” of harm, courts may distinguish between mechanically caused displacement injuries and injuries produced by an unexpected chemical/physical reaction.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal denied recovery because the claimant’s burns resulted from an eruption mechanism that was not reasonably foreseeable; the court treated the eruption as different in kind from a foreseeable splash, making the damage too remote in negligence.


Doughty v. Turner Mfg. Co., [1964] 1 Q.B. 518 (C.A.)