Legal Case Summary
Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405
Law of Tort – Foreseeability – Negligence – Damages – Remoteness of Damage – Eggshell Skull Rule – Causation
Facts
The complainant was employed as a galvaniser of steel for the defendants, Leech Brain & Co Ltd. He had been working and operating a machine in the workplace, when a piece of molten metal burnt his lip, after he stepped out from behind the protective shield. Although the burn was treated, he developed cancer and died three years later. The complainant had a pre-cancerous condition, before the burn had taken place. When he died, his widow brought a claim against Leech Brain & Co Ltd under the Fatal Accidents Act.
Issues
The issues in this case concerned whether the employers could be liable for the full extent of the burn and cancer that had developed as a result or would a person’s predispositions matter in the award of damages.
Decision/Outcome
The defendants were held to be negligent and liable for damages to the complainant. The complainant burnt his lip as a result of the defendant’s negligence in the workplace. The employers are liable for all of the consequences of their negligence; thus, liable for the employee’s death. His predisposition to cancer did not matter, nor did the results of the injury. The question of liability was whether the defendant could reasonable foresee the injury. Lord Parker stated that the eggshell skull rule and taking the victim as you find them has always been the established law and this was not affected by the ruling in the Wagon Mound case.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains legally accurate. Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405 continues to be good law and is still the leading authority for the eggshell skull (or thin skull) rule in English tort law. The principle that a defendant must take their victim as they find them, and is liable for the full extent of harm caused by their negligence even where the claimant had a pre-existing vulnerability, has been consistently affirmed in subsequent case law, including by the House of Lords in Page v Smith [1996] AC 155 and the Supreme Court in Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] UKHL 13.
The article’s reference to the Fatal Accidents Act is accurate in substance, though readers should note that the relevant legislation is now the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (as amended), which consolidates and replaced earlier legislation. The underlying legal principles discussed in the article are unaffected by this.
No statutory or case law development has materially altered the legal position described in this article.
