## Facts

- The plaintiff, a ship painter, was injured while working on a stage suspended from the defendant's dock.
- The stage collapsed because of defective ropes supplied by the defendant, who had contracted with the plaintiff’s employer, not the plaintiff directly.
- There was no direct contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.
- The Court of Appeal considered whether a duty of care existed between the parties despite the absence of a contract.

## Issues

1. Whether a duty of care can arise in negligence where no contractual relationship exists between the parties.
2. What criteria determine the existence and scope of such a duty in the context of foreseeable harm and proximity.
3. Whether the provision and implied representation of the safety of equipment by a dock owner creates liability for injury.

## Decision

- Brett MR formulated a broad duty of care principle based on the reasonable foreseeability of harm; if a person, by ordinary standards, would realize a failure to use care could injure another, a duty arises.
- Cotton and Bowen LJJ advanced a narrower interpretation, focusing on the implicit invitation to use the staging and the proximity between the parties, grounding the duty in an implied representation of safety.
- The Court recognized the potential for a duty of care to arise outside contractual relationships, based on foreseeability and the relationship's closeness.

## Legal Principles

- A general duty of care may arise where it is reasonably foreseeable that one's conduct could cause harm to another.
- Proximity of relationship and implied representations of safety are central to establishing such a duty.
- The foreseeability of harm is a fundamental element in determining duty of care in negligence.
- The principles in this case anticipated the later "neighbour principle" adopted in Donoghue v Stevenson.

## Conclusion

Heaven v Pender marks a foundational development in negligence law, articulating foreseeability and proximity as bases for a duty of care independent of contract, and influencing subsequent legal formulations of the duty in English law.


Heaven v Pender (1883) 11 QBD 503