## Facts

- The case involved two chimney sweeps who died of carbon monoxide poisoning while sealing a sweep hole in a chimney connected to an active coke-fired boiler.
- The sweeps were performing work that exposed them to dangerous fumes, a known risk in their profession.
- The central question was whether the occupier, Mr. Nathan, was liable for their deaths in light of the nature of their professional duties and associated risks.

## Issues

1. Whether an occupier can be held liable for the death of skilled professionals resulting from risks associated with their trade.
2. Whether the occupier's duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 is reduced when skilled professionals are engaged in their ordinary work.
3. Whether any actions of the occupier introduced or increased risks beyond those associated with the professional’s calling.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that Mr. Nathan, the occupier, was not liable for the deaths of the chimney sweeps.
- The judgment reasoned that occupiers can reasonably expect skilled professionals to protect themselves against ordinary risks of their trade, as specified in s 2(3)(b) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.
- Liability would only arise if the occupier had interfered or introduced additional risks beyond those normally found in the work.

## Legal Principles

- Section 2(3)(b) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 recognizes that occupiers may expect skilled workers to guard against dangers related to their calling.
- The duty of care owed by an occupier to a visitor is modified when the risk is an ordinary element of the professional skill for which the visitor was engaged.
- The occupier is not required to anticipate or protect against all possible eventualities relating to the skilled worker’s own trade, but owes a duty with respect to hazards outside the professional’s skill set or those introduced by the occupier’s actions.
- The principle distinguishes between risks peculiar to the trade (where occupiers may be absolved) and general risks posed by the premises (where occupiers may still be liable).

## Conclusion

Roles v Nathan [1963] established that occupiers generally owe a reduced duty of care to skilled professionals concerning risks naturally arising from their work, provided the occupier does not add to those risks. This allocation of responsibility forms a lasting precedent in occupiers’ liability and is frequently cited in matters involving injured professionals.


Roles v Nathan [1963] 1 WLR 1117