Legal Case Summary
Woods v Durable Suites Ltd [1953] 1 WLR 857
Employer’s liability; duty to provide safe system of work; extent of duty to encourage use of safety equipment.
Facts
Mr Woods was employed as a glue spreader in the defendant’s factory. His role frequently involved his hands and arms coming into contact with a synthetic glue known to cause dermatitis, unless appropriate protective measures were taken. The employer provided barrier cream and washing facilities and a Home Office Circular regarding the risk of dermatitis and advice as to how to avoid it, were placed near Mr Woods’ place of work at the material time. He contracted dermatitis and claimed against his employer for breaching their duty to ensure the safety precautions were taken.
Issues
Durable Suites are under a duty of care to ensure a safe and proper place of work for their employees per Wilsons & Clyde Coal v English [1938] AC 57. Mr Woods asserted the duty extended to their providing appropriate supervision to ensure safety procedures were being followed. He contended the foreman should have been present and actively encouraging the use of barrier cream and washing facilities. The defendants contended they had discharged their duty by providing barrier cream and washing facilities. They instructed their employees to avail themselves of them and there was a notice to that effect prominently displayed at Mr Woods’ place of work. They further argued, in the alternative, that Mr Woods had been contributory negligent for failing to adhere to the safety procedures.
Decision / Outcome
Mr Woods was unsuccessful in his claim. The defendants had discharged their duty by providing adequate and appropriate safety equipment and instructing their employees to adhere to safety procedures. It was not the role of the employer to stand behind every employee and ensure he is doing what he knows he is supposed to do.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately states the facts, issues, and outcome of Woods v Durable Suites Ltd [1953] 1 WLR 857. The foundational authority cited, Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English [1938] AC 57, remains good law as the leading House of Lords authority establishing the employer’s non-delegable common law duties, including the duty to provide a safe system of work.
Readers should be aware that the broader legal landscape governing employer liability and workplace safety has developed considerably since 1953. Much of the statutory framework is now governed by the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and regulations made under it, including the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH), which impose specific duties regarding hazardous substances such as the type of glue involved in this case. These statutory regimes operate alongside, and in some respects go further than, the common law duty described in this case. The principle in Woods — that an employer may discharge its duty by providing appropriate equipment and instructions without being required to supervise every individual employee — remains part of the common law, but courts will assess what is reasonable in light of all circumstances, and statutory obligations may set a higher or more prescriptive standard in comparable modern scenarios. The case remains useful as an illustration of the limits of the employer’s common law duty of supervision.
