Withers v Perry Chain Co Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 1314
Employer’s duty of care; employee susceptible to injury accepted work without protest
Facts
Ms Withers was employed by the defendant factory doing bicycle hub assembly work. She contracted dermatitis from having contact with grease. Her employers transferred her to other work assembling driving sleeves, which they considered to be the driest work available in the factory. Ms Withers had three further episodes of dermatitis which caused her to be absent from work, but on each occasion, she returned to work and accepted the same duties without protest. She sought damages in negligence against the defendant for failing to prevent her from working with irritating substances, when they knew she was susceptible to dermatitis.
Issues
The defendant was under a duty to provide a safe and proper system of work to their employees per Wilson & Clyde Coal Co v English [1938] AC 57. Ms Withers alleged that since her employer knew she had suffered from dermatitis, they were in breach of this duty by permitting her to continue to work with lubricating suds which they knew, or ought to have known, were likely to cause, or aggravate dermatitis. The defendant contended they had not been in breach of duty as there was no duty to prevent an employee from working who voluntarily accepts the work, and is aware of the risks involved.
Held
Ms Withers’ claim was unsuccessful. There is no duty on an employer to dismiss or refuse to employ an adult employee who voluntarily consents to work, merely because there may be a risk to the employee in doing that particular work. If there was a risk posed by the employment, it was for the employee to weigh it against the benefits of the employment and to decide whether to accept the job.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the facts, issues, and outcome of Withers v Perry Chain Co Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 1314, a Court of Appeal decision that remains good law. The principle that an employer is not obliged to dismiss or exclude a fully informed adult employee who voluntarily accepts a known risk continues to be cited in occupational health and employer liability cases. However, readers should note that the legal landscape around employer liability has developed significantly since 1961. In particular, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH) now impose statutory duties on employers to assess and control workplace risks, including risks from skin-irritating substances such as lubricants and greases. These obligations may in practice narrow the scope of the Withers principle in modern cases, since an employer who has failed to carry out a suitable risk assessment or to implement adequate controls may be in breach of statutory duty regardless of whether the employee consented to continue working. The decision in Withers should therefore be read alongside this statutory framework when considering the modern position.
