Statutory Duties Cannot Be Waived: Wheeler v New Merton Board Mills (1933)
Case Essentials
Citation: Wheeler v New Merton Board Mills Ltd [1933] 2 KB 669
Court: Court of Appeal (England)
Plaintiff: Mr. Wheeler (A factory worker)
Defendant: New Merton Board Mills Ltd (The employer)
The Story Behind the Case
Mr. Wheeler worked in a cardboard factory operating a heavy cutting machine. Under the Factory and Workshop Act, the factory owners were legally required to install safety guards around the dangerous parts of the machinery to protect workers. The company ignored this law and left the cutting blades exposed. While working, Wheeler’s hand was caught in the machine and severely injured. When he sued for damages, the company tried to argue that Wheeler knew the machine was unguarded but voluntarily chose to keep working, meaning he accepted the risk.
Facts
A factory worker was injured by an unguarded machine. The employer had breached a direct statutory safety law but claimed the employee voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by continuing to do his job.
Issue
Can a defendant use the defence of consent to avoid liability when they have clearly violated a strict statutory duty designed for the plaintiff’s protection?
Rule
The defence of Volenti non fit injuria is never available as a defence against a breach of a statutory duty.
Analysis
The court ruled that safety statutes are passed by Parliament specifically to protect workers from industrial hazards. If employers could simply ignore the law and argue that their workers “consented” to working in illegal, unsafe conditions, the safety legislation would become completely useless. A private agreement or an employee’s implied consent can never override a strict legal duty imposed by the government. The employer broke the law, and they cannot use the worker’s knowledge of that illegality as an excuse.
Case Outcome: The defence of Volenti non fit injuria FAILED. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, establishing that consent cannot be used as a defence when the defendant breaches a strict statutory duty.