“Duty of care extends to foreseeable users with disabilities including blind pedestrians.”
Mr Haley, who was blind, fell into an excavation on a pavement. The defendants had placed warning signs but no physical barriers that a blind person could detect with a walking stick.
Whether the standard of care owed to pedestrians includes consideration of those with disabilities, particularly blind people using walking sticks.
The House of Lords held that the defendants were liable. The standard of care must account for blind pedestrians as foreseeable users of pavements.
This case established important principles about inclusive duty of care, requiring consideration of disabled users in safety measures. It represents early judicial recognition of disability rights in tort law and influenced later accessibility requirements.
You're reading the free summary of Haley v London Electricity Board. 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
Haley v London Electricity Board [1965] AC 778 (HL)
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.