Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis [1955] AC 549
The liability of a local authority for road users injured whilst trying to avoid hitting a young child who had escaped from school
Facts
The claimant in this matter was the wife of a lorry driver killed whilst trying to avoid a child in the road. The child was at school when his teacher, intending to take him out of school, prepared him to leave. However, before she was able to take the child, another child fell and was hurt. Whilst the teacher was attending to the hurt child and was distracted, the other child wandered out of the school building and through an open gate onto the road. On seeing the child, the claimant’s husband swerved his lorry in order to avoid hitting the child, crashed into a telegraph pole and was killed. Negligence was found against the teacher at first instance and was upheld on appeal. The council appealed to the House of Lords.
Issues
The issue in this context was whether a local authority had a duty of care to road users to the extent that required it to prevent young children in its care from straying onto the road.
Decision/Outcome
It was held that the duty owed by the teacher was that of a careful parent and, in the circumstances, the teacher had acted in a manner consistent with this duty. The accident was not found to be the teacher’s fault. However, the fact that the child was able to leave the school so easily as soon as the teacher’s back was turned indicated that there was a lack of proper precautions in place to avoid this happening. In the absence of a proper explanation for the child’s presence on the road, the council must be held liable for the cause of the crash. The council had a duty, not only to the child, but also to road users affected by the child’s actions. The appeal was dismissed.
Updated 19 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the House of Lords decision in Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis [1955] AC 549. The case remains good law and continues to be cited in discussions of occupier/authority liability and the duty of care owed to third parties affected by the acts or omissions of those in the defendant’s care or control. The general principle that a local authority or school authority may owe a duty of care to road users — not merely to the children in its charge — where a foreseeable danger arises from inadequate supervision or precautions remains recognised in UK tort law. No subsequent statutory provision or appellate decision has overruled or materially qualified the ratio of this case. Readers should note that the broader legal landscape governing local authority liability and the duty of care has developed considerably since 1955, particularly following cases such as Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, which refined the general test for duty of care, and a line of cases concerning public authority liability. This case should therefore be read in that wider modern context when applied to contemporary problems.
