Woodward v Mayor of Hastings [1945] KB 174
Tort law – Negligence – Limitation of action
Facts
The plaintiff, aged twelve, slipped on an icy surface on the step of a church whilst he was at school. He fell over and sustained injuries. A cleaner had brushed away snow from the step but not placed any material down to neutralise the ice left behind which therefore left the step in a dangerous condition. His mother, as his next friend, claimed to recover damages for the injury, alleging that the cleaner was negligent in her actions and as a result, the governors representing the school were liable for her actions.
Issues
An important issue for the court to decide was whether the cleaner was under the control of the governors of the school or whether the governor of the school could limit their liability for the accident by way of the Limitation Act 1939, section 21. Under the statute, the school could potentially limit their liability if it could be proven the cleaner was not acting under their control.
Decision/Outcome
The court held that the school governors were liable for the cleaner’s negligence in this instance. It was deemed that the cleaner was acting as an agent of the school and ought to have been aware of the danger her action had caused. The court also supplemented this with the belief that if the school could prove the cleaner was not under their control, they would still be liable on the basis that they had delegated their duty to the cleaner and she had not discharged this.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the facts, issues, and outcome of Woodward v Mayor of Hastings [1945] KB 174, which remains good law as a case on occupiers’ liability and the non-delegable nature of the duty of care owed to visitors (particularly children on school premises). The case predates the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 but continues to be cited in academic and judicial discussions of non-delegable duties.
Readers should note that the Limitation Act 1939, referred to in the article, has long since been repealed and replaced, principally by the Limitation Act 1980, which is the current governing statute on limitation periods in England and Wales. The substantive limitation principles applicable to personal injury claims are now found in the 1980 Act, particularly sections 11–14. This does not affect the ratio of the case itself, but students should ensure they refer to current limitation legislation in any contemporary analysis.
The broader legal landscape surrounding occupiers’ liability is now governed by the Occupiers’ Liability Acts 1957 and 1984, and the principle of non-delegable duties discussed in this case has been further developed by the Supreme Court in Woodland v Swimming Teachers Association [2013] UKSC 66, which students should consider alongside this case when studying the area.
