Haseldine v Daw & Son [1941] 2 KB 343 (CA)

Facts

• The case involved a hydraulic lift installed in an apartment building for the use of tenants.
• The landlord retained control over the lift and maintained insurance for third-party risks related to its use.
• Maintenance was contracted to an engineering firm, which conducted monthly inspections and reported to the landlord.
• During an inspection, the engineers informed the landlord about significant wear on the lift’s rams but failed to communicate any immediate danger.
• Subsequently, a maintenance worker did not properly repack the machinery, resulting in a weakened condition.
• The following day, a tenant (the plaintiff) was injured when the lift failed.
• The plaintiff sued both the landlord and the engineering firm for negligence relating to the incident.

Issues

1. Whether the landlord could be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries after entrusting the lift’s maintenance to a specialist engineering company.
2. Whether employing competent engineers was sufficient to discharge the landlord’s duty of care regarding the lift's safety.
3. Whether the landlord could be legally responsible for defects caused by independent contractors when lacking technical skill and knowledge of the specific risk.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the landlord, holding that their duty was limited to ensuring the premises, including shared amenities like the lift, were reasonably safe.
• The landlord’s duty was satisfied by engaging a competent engineering company to conduct maintenance and inspections.
• The court found it was not the landlord’s responsibility to personally evaluate the lift’s safety or oversee technical maintenance by the engineers.
• The landlord was not liable for the contractor’s negligence since there was no evidence the landlord was, or should have been, aware of the defect that caused the harm.
• Responsibility for the defective maintenance was found to rest with the independent engineering firm, not the landlord.

Legal Principles

• A party engaging competent experts for specialist work generally discharges their duty of care and is not liable for the expert’s negligence unless the party knows or ought to know of the risk.
• Landlords are entitled to rely on qualified professionals for technical tasks beyond their technical skill, with liability shifting to the independent contractor for negligence in those tasks.
• The case draws a distinction between direct liability (when doing the work oneself) and vicarious liability for independent contractors.
• The decision contrasts with strict liability regimes, such as that introduced by the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which impose liability irrespective of fault for defective products.
• This principle remains significant for delineating responsibility between contracting parties and independent contractors within tort law.

Conclusion

Haseldine v Daw & Son [1941] 2 KB 343 (CA) established that a landlord who engages competent contractors for technical maintenance fulfills their duty of care and is not generally liable for contractor negligence, unless aware or expected to be aware of the defect; direct liability may only arise if the landlord was negligent in selecting or supervising the contractor.