“Frostbite injuries foreseeable consequence of prolonged cold exposure at work.”
Bradford, aged 57, was required by his employer to drive 460 miles in an unheated van during severe winter weather. He developed frostbite and sued for damages for this injury.
Whether frostbite injuries were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the employer's breach of duty in requiring the journey in dangerous conditions.
The court held that the employers were liable. Although frostbite specifically might not have been foreseeable, some form of injury from cold exposure was reasonably foreseeable.
This case demonstrates the application of the foreseeability test to employment situations and shows that the exact injury need not be foreseeable provided the general type of harm is. It's important for understanding remoteness in employment law.
You're reading the free summary of Bradford v Robinson Rentals Ltd. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Bradford v Robinson Rentals Ltd [1967] 1 WLR 337
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.