Background
Jack Bristow, a 23-year-old trainee traffic management operative employed by Hooke Highways, was killed on 18 February 2022 during Storm Eunice. He and a colleague had collected temporary traffic-management equipment from Old Woking Road and unloaded it at the employer’s Hampshire depot. While returning towards Oxfordshire, their van was struck by a tree that fell onto its cab.
At 3.44am that day, the Met Office had issued a Red Weather Warning for Oxfordshire and Hampshire, warning of extremely strong winds, disruption and danger from flying debris. Jack’s parents, acting as administrators of his estate and for the benefit of his dependants, alleged that Hooke Highways should have declined or reassigned the work, or required the employees to remain at the Hampshire depot. The liability claim against the landowner was not before the court.
The Court’s Holding
Master Šabić KC dismissed the claim against Hooke Highways. Although an employer owed a non-delegable duty to take reasonable care for Jack’s safety, the risk that an employee travelling on an ordinary public road would be killed by a falling tree was not reasonably foreseeable. The Red Weather Warning was advisory, not a prohibition on travel; it did not make this particular fatal event a sufficiently probable risk for negligence purposes.
The court also held that Hooke Highways was not required to take additional precautions. Its existing storm measures included prohibiting lone working, liaison between depots and checking on operatives. A supposed failure to conduct a more bespoke risk assessment could not establish liability without showing that a suitable assessment would probably have identified a precaution that would probably have avoided the death. The proposed alternatives were not realistic or practicable: the equipment-removal work was essential or of significant public importance, the Hampshire depot was at capacity, and it would have been artificial to compel the employees to remain there.
Key Takeaways
- A Red Weather Warning does not, by itself, make every road journey or storm-related accident reasonably foreseeable for employer-liability purposes.
- An employer’s duty regarding travel on public roads is shaped by its limited control over external hazards and the factual probability of harm.
- A deficient risk assessment creates liability only where an adequate assessment would probably have led to precautions that would probably have prevented the injury.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that common-law employer liability remains fault-based even in severe-weather conditions. Courts must avoid hindsight when assessing whether employers should have cancelled, altered or delayed work involving travel.
For employers, the case underscores the value of proportionate adverse-weather procedures, while making clear that the occurrence of a tragic accident does not itself prove that an unassessed risk was legally foreseeable.