[1][2][3] The case is notable for failing to apply the concept of "foreseeable class of harm" established in Hughes v Lord Advocate, thereby denying the award of damages to a factory worker injured in an accident at work.
Shortly afterwards a "violent eruption" occurred, causing serious burns to the claimant who was standing some distance away.
Unknown to anyone, the asbestos-cement lining was saturated with moisture from atmospheric water-vapour, and the accident occurred when water in the lid turned to steam and "erupted".
The court disagreed, saying that a splashing was a physical displacement, whereas an eruption was a chemical reaction which was NOT in the same class of harm.
While the court may have been anxious not to revert to the strict liability approach of Re Polemis in 1921, the immediate consequence of this case is that an innocent claimant injured at work had no redress against his employer, even though: