When the employer was wrong to assume that the window cleaner should have known better
What happened?
Please note this case dates back to 1953.
Ernest Christmas, a window cleaner with twenty years’ experience was employed to clean a customer’s windows. He stood on the narrow six inch exterior windowsill, and had to place his hand between two window sashes to clean the outside panes. One sash unexpectedly closed into the other, crushing his hand. As this was his only means of support, he fell and was injured.
He made a claim against his employer.
The employer, General Cleaning Contractors, argued that, as an experienced window cleaner, the man should have known sash windows can close unexpectedly and should have wedged it open himself. In short, they contended that he had placed himself in a dangerous situation and suffered the foreseeable consequence.
Legal Outcome
The court rejected the employer’s argument, holding that the employer could not shift responsibility for devising a safe system of work onto the employee. The judge emphasised the employer’s duty:
“The danger in this case is one which is constantly found, and it calls for a system to meet it. Where a practice of ignoring an obvious danger has grown up I do not think that it is reasonable to expect an individual workman to take the initiative in devising and using precautions. It is the duty of the employer to consider the situation, to devise a suitable system, to instruct his men what they must do and to supply any implements that may be required such as, in this case, wedges or objects to be put on the windowsill to prevent the window from closing. No doubt he (the employer) cannot be certain that his men will do as they are told when they are working alone. But if he does all that is reasonable to ensure that his safety system is operated, he will have done what he is bound to do.”
General Cleaning Contractors were ordered to pay Mr Christmas £3,500 in damages (equivalent to around £85,000 in 2025). The cleaning company appealed, but this was rejected.
What can we learn from what happened?
This case illustrates how the principle of duty of care, and specifically the non-delegable nature of it from employer to employee, pre-dates HASAWA in 1974 – it has been around for a long time.
The age of the case also illustrates how, while the law regarding duty of care may not have changed, our approach to what is expected of employers to keep employees safe has shifted considerably. Can you imagine that seventy years after this case it would be acceptable for an employer to rely on a sash window being held open by wedges while the window cleaner stands on the windowsill? No.
It is often thought that the law is always changing – it doesn’t really. It’s what the courts and society consider to be safe, as often represented in guidance, that changes over time.
Source of Information
Bridget Leathley – from her ‘The Safer Choice’ website