## Facts

- The case concerned an incident at a quarry operated by Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), where two experienced shotfirers, James Shatwell and his brother George, were employed to detonate explosives.
- ICI provided strict safety protocols, requiring use of a testing device to ensure electrical circuits were safe before detonation.
- The Shatwell brothers disregarded the prescribed protocol and manually tested the circuit, resulting in an explosion and serious injuries to both men.
- James Shatwell sued ICI, alleging negligence in the company’s failure to enforce the safety protocols sufficiently.
- The dispute focused on whether ICI was liable for injuries sustained by employees who knowingly exposed themselves to risk by ignoring safety procedures.

## Issues

1. Whether the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria applied to employees who, with full knowledge, voluntarily consented to undertake a hazardous act contrary to established safety procedures.
2. Whether an employer’s duty to provide a safe workplace is absolute, or whether it can be limited by an employee’s voluntary assumption of known risks in breach of protocol.
3. Whether ICI was liable for injuries suffered by the employees despite their conscious and informed decision to disregard mandatory safety measures.

## Decision

- The House of Lords unanimously found for ICI, holding that the Shatwell brothers had voluntarily assumed the risks associated with their actions.
- The court determined the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria was applicable, as the brothers' decision to ignore safety protocols was informed and freely made.
- It was held that ICI’s duty to provide a safe workplace did not extend to protecting employees from dangers they knowingly and willingly brought upon themselves.
- The employer’s liability was limited where employees deliberately chose to disobey clear safety rules.
- The action against ICI was dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria bars recovery where an individual voluntarily, with full knowledge, consents to a risk.
- Consent must be voluntary, informed, and unequivocal for the defence to succeed.
- An employer’s duty to ensure workplace safety is not absolute; it does not cover risks voluntarily accepted by employees who intentionally breach safety protocols.
- Both employers and employees share responsibility for workplace safety.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords clarified that an employer is not liable where employees, with knowledge and by choice, disregard safety protocols and thus voluntarily accept the risk of injury; the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria applies, limiting employer liability in such circumstances.


Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Shatwell [1965] AC 656