McWilliams v Sir Arrol & Co Ltd [1962] 1 WLR 295
Failure to provide safety equipment under s26(2) Factories Act 1937; causation; claimant would not have worn it.
Facts
The claimant was an experienced steel erecter who fell 70 feet to his death from a steel tower he was working on. His employer had failed to provide him with a safety harness and his widow sought damages at common law and for breach of statutory duty for failing to provide appropriate safety equipment, given the height at which her husband was working. The trial judge held breach of duty was established but the claimant would not have worn a belt even if one had been provided, her claim, therefore, failed on causation. The widow appealed.
Issues
The employer is under a statutory duty under s26(2) Factories Act 1937 where an employee is working at a height where he may fall a distance of more than 10 feet, to provide reasonable means to ensure his safety. The employer is also under a common law duty to take reasonable care for their employee’s safety by virtue of Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English [1938]AC 57. The employers were able to submit persuasive evidence that the deceased rarely if ever used a safety harness even if one was provided in the workplace. The wording of the Buildings (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations (1948) Reg.97 provides that the duty to provide safety harnesses applies to persons who ‘elect to use them’.
Decision/Outcome
The widow’s appeal was dismissed by the House of Lords. Although she had successfully established breach of duty, it was reasonable to infer the deceased would not have worn the harness had one been provided and he would, therefore, have suffered the same injury in any event.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the decision in McWilliams v Sir Arrol & Co Ltd [1962] 1 WLR 295 and the causation principle it established. The case remains good law and is still regularly cited in negligence and breach of statutory duty contexts for the proposition that a claimant must prove that the defendant’s breach caused the loss — if the claimant would not have availed themselves of the precaution even had it been provided, causation fails.
Readers should note that the specific statutory provisions discussed — the Factories Act 1937 and the Buildings (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations 1948 — have long since been repealed and replaced. The modern statutory framework governing workplace safety is primarily the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and associated regulations, including the Work at Height Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/735). The repeal of those provisions does not affect the authority of the case as a statement of causation principles in tort, but students should be aware that the statutory context described in the article no longer reflects current law. The article also correctly identifies the House of Lords as the final appellate court; that jurisdiction now rests with the UK Supreme Court following the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
