## Facts

- On 21 October 1950, AEC Ltd’s factory floor was flooded during a heavy rainstorm, and the water mixed with oil, creating a slippery hazard.
- AEC Ltd responded by spreading sawdust in an effort to mitigate the risk of slipping, but not all affected areas were treated.
- Mr. Latimer, an employee, slipped and fell on an untreated patch, sustaining injuries.
- The incident led Mr. Latimer to bring legal proceedings against his employer, alleging breach of the duty of care.

## Issues

1. Whether AEC Ltd had breached its duty of care to Mr. Latimer by failing to make the workplace safe after the flood.
2. Whether the employer’s duty required absolute precautions to prevent all accidents, or only reasonable, practical precautions in the circumstances.
3. To what extent the foreseeability of risk and the cost and practicality of preventative measures must inform the standard of care required from an employer.

## Decision

- The House of Lords found that AEC Ltd did not breach its duty of care; the company had taken reasonable precautions given the circumstances.
- The duty of care owed by employers does not require an absolute guarantee of safety for employees.
- The measures taken by AEC Ltd, including spreading sawdust, were reasonable and proportionate, considering the available resources and the scale of the risk.
- Closing the factory to eliminate the risk entirely was not required, as it would have been disproportionately burdensome relative to the danger present.

## Legal Principles

- The standard of care in negligence is one of reasonableness, not strict liability or absolute safety.
- Employers must take precautions that a reasonable and prudent employer would take given the actual circumstances and resources.
- The foreseeability of risk, availability and cost-effectiveness of preventative measures, and the practicality of precautions are central to determining breach of duty.
- The expense and inconvenience of precautions may be considered, but do not excuse a failure to address significant risks where reasonable measures are available.

## Conclusion

The decision in Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643 clarified that employers' duty of care requires reasonable, not absolute, measures to ensure safety. The case remains a leading authority on how courts balance practicality, risk, cost, and foreseeability when assessing employer liability in negligence.
