Heaven v Pender (1883)

Court: Court of Appeal

Facts: Pender, the owner of a dry dock, was sued by Heaven, a ship painter who was injured while using defective staging supported by damaged ropes. The central issue was whether Pender owed a duty of care to Heaven, who was on the dock for work purposes.

Held: The Court of Appeal, guided by Brett MR’s minority judgment, acknowledged that a duty of care arises when one’s actions could potentially harm others if ordinary care and skill are not exercised. Although Brett MR’s views were obiter, they highlighted a broad duty of care concept. The case was ultimately resolved on the basis that Pender, as the occupier of land, owed a duty of care to invitees like Heaven, who were on the site for work-related purposes.

Key Judicial Statement: Brett MR noted, "When one person’s situation suggests potential danger to another, there arises a duty to exercise ordinary care and skill to prevent harm."

💡LevelUpLaw: This case marked a foundational moment in negligence law, with Brett MR's conceptualisation of duty of care paving the way for the landmark decision in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932].