Legal Case Summary
Bradford v Robinson Rentals Ltd [1967] 1 All ER 267
The types of harms which can be claimed for under tortious negligence
Facts
The claimant, Bradford, was an employee of the defendants, Robinson Rentals, and in the course of his employment it was requested that he be sent to assist a colleague in a vehicle repair. This request was made in January, during a time at which the defendants were aware of particularly bad weather concerns resulting from an unusually cold winter. The trip necessitated the claimant to endure a travelling time of approximately 20 hours’ driving (a distance of 450 to 500 miles in total), with both the vehicle that Bradford was driving, and the vehicle he was driving to, lacking any form of heating function. Subsequently, the exposure to the severely cold weather resulted in the claimant developing injuries stemming from frostbite, despite that he took reasonable caution in dressing warmly.
Issues
Were the injuries sustained by the claimant of the form that could be reasonably foreseen and thus claimed for in tort.
Decision/Outcome
The Court applied Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] 1 All ER 705 and found that whilst the claimant’s specific injuries were not foreseeable (due to the rarity of frostbite injuries in England), the kind of injury was foreseeable, namely injury resulting from exposure to extreme weather conditions. It was reaffirmed that in assessing harm, the precise injury need not have been anticipated, rather the defendant need only have been able to foresee an injury of that kind occurring.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Bradford v Robinson Rentals Ltd [1967] 1 All ER 267 and correctly applies the principle from Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 (also reported at [1963] 1 All ER 705) that a defendant need not foresee the precise injury, only the general kind of harm. This remains good law. The principle of ‘kind of damage’ foreseeability in remoteness of damage continues to be applied in English tort law and was affirmed by the House of Lords in Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000] 1 WLR 1082 and remains consistent with subsequent case law. The article is broadly accurate and up to date for the purpose for which it is written. Readers should note that Bradford v Robinson Rentals is also relevant to the duty of care owed by employers to employees and sits alongside the broader body of employer liability and occupational health law, which has developed significantly through statute (notably the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and associated regulations) since 1967, though this does not affect the tortious negligence principles summarised here.
