Legal Case Summary
Haseldine v C.A. Daw & Son Ltd [1941] 2 KB 343
Tort law – Negligence – Liability of owner
Facts
The case involved a hydraulic lift which was used to access the upper floor flats of an apartment block which were rented out to tenants. The landlord remained in occupation of the lift and had insurance against third party risks in the course of using the lift. The insurance company made occasional inspections of the lift in this respect. There was also an agreement made between the landlord and an engineering company to maintain the lift each month and report issues. The engineers told the landlord the rams were badly worn but not that it was dangerous to use. On one visit, one of the engineers failed to repack the machinery properly, leaving it weakened for the next use. The next day, the plaintiff used the lift and was injured when the lift broke. The plaintiff brought an action against the landlord and engineers.
Issues
The legal issue, in this case, was whether the landlord was liable for the injury caused to the plaintiff having used the lift in the course of events or whether the onus was on the engineering company for not having replaced the parts of the lift effectively.
Decision / Outcome
The Court of Appeal held that the only obligation on the landlord was to ensure that the lift was reasonably safe and that he had employed competent engineers to inspect the machinery. It was held on this basis that the landlord was not liable for the incident. The owner was not aware of the danger caused by the fact that the mechanic had not repacked the machine satisfactorily.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Haseldine v C.A. Daw & Son Ltd [1941] 2 KB 343. The legal principles described remain good law. The case continues to be cited as authority for the proposition that an occupier or landlord who entrusts maintenance of a complex technical item to apparently competent specialists discharges their duty of care, and will not ordinarily be liable for latent defects caused by the specialist’s negligence of which the occupier had no knowledge. These principles sit comfortably within the broader framework of occupiers’ liability as subsequently codified in the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, neither of which has displaced the relevance of this case to the question of delegation and reasonable care. No subsequent case or statutory amendment has materially undermined the authority of this decision. Students should note, however, that the 1957 Act now governs the duty owed to lawful visitors in most practical contexts, and Haseldine is best understood today as illustrating the standard of reasonable care rather than as a freestanding statement of the modern statutory duty.
