## Facts

- London Electricity Board employees excavated a trench in a residential London pavement under statutory authority.
- Although portable barriers were available, the employees did not erect them; when leaving the site, they placed tools as a makeshift warning.
- A “punner” (a long-handled weighted tool) was laid diagonally across the pavement, sloping from a few inches above the ground near the kerb to about two feet high near the inner edge.
- Mr. Haley, totally blind and walking unaccompanied with a white cane, did not detect the low obstruction, tripped, fell, and struck his head.
- Haley suffered serious injuries, including deafness.
- The Board contended it had taken reasonable precautions for sighted pedestrians and that an unaccompanied blind pedestrian was not reasonably foreseeable on that street.
- The trial court and Court of Appeal dismissed the claim; Haley appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether those conducting pavement works owe a duty to take reasonable care for blind (and other disabled) pedestrians where their presence is reasonably foreseeable.
2. Whether placing a low-lying tool across the pavement, rather than using available barriers, satisfied the standard of reasonable care.

## Decision

- The House of Lords allowed the appeal and held the Board liable in negligence.
- It was reasonably foreseeable that blind pedestrians might use a public pavement in a modern city.
- The Board’s precautions were inadequate because the punner created a hazard for blind pedestrians and proper barriers were available and practicable.

## Legal Principles

- The standard of reasonable care on public highways is assessed by reference to foreseeable users, including disabled persons who may reasonably be expected to use the highway.
- A defendant cannot limit precautions to the safety of able-bodied persons if disabled users are within reasonable foresight.
- Where simple, standard protective measures are available (e.g., portable barriers), reliance on makeshift warnings that do not protect foreseeable vulnerable users may constitute breach of duty.

## Conclusion

Those undertaking works that obstruct or endanger a public pavement must take reasonable steps to protect all reasonably foreseeable users, including blind pedestrians; failing to use available barriers and instead leaving a low tool obstruction breached the duty of care.


Haley v. London Elec. Bd., [1965] A.C. 778 (H.L.)