sonbahis girişsonbahissonbahis güncelyakabetyakabet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişhilbethilbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişaresbetaresbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişteosbetteosbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişyakabetyakabet girişaresbetaresbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişkulisbetkulisbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişhilbethilbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişteosbetteosbet girişholiganbetjojobetholiganbet girişjojobet girişcasibom girişvaycasinoholiganbet girişpusulabetjojobet girişholiganbetpusulabetvaycasino girişholiganbet girişgrandpashabetpusulabetcratosroyalbetpashagamingradissonbetvaycasino girişcasibom girişaresbetaresbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişhilbethilbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişyakabetyakabet girişteosbetteosbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişエクスネスvaycasinocasibomcasibomjojobetholiganbettrendbettrendbet girişhilbethilbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişyakabetyakabet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişteosbetteosbet girişaresbetaresbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişatlasbet girişatlasbetteosbet girişteosbetwinxbetwinxbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişyakabetyakabet giriştrendbettrendbet girişhilbethilbet girişaresbetaresbet girişteosbetteosbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişyakabetyakabet girişaresbetaresbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişhilbethilbet girişyakabetyakabet girişaresbetaresbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişhilbethilbet girişteosbetteosbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişextrabetextrabet girişibizabetibizabet girişkingbettingkingbetting girişbetciobetcio girişJojobet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişyakabetyakabet girişaresbetaresbet girişhilbethilbet girişteosbetteosbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişextrabetextrabet girişibizabetibizabet girişkingbettingkingbetting girişbetciobetcio girişcoinbarcoinbar girişodeonbetodeonbet girişlunabetlunabet girişmatbetmatbet girişmeritkingmeritking girişpusulabetpusulabetrinabetrinabetbetkolikbetkolikkulisbetkulisbetmeritkingmeritkingmegabahismegabahislunabetlunabetartemisbetartemisbetbahiscasinobahiscasinojojobetCasibomCasibom girişCasibom güncel girişCasibomSekabetmatbetromabetatlasbetatlasbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişaresbetaresbet girişmeritkingmeritking girişmavibetmavibet girişhızlıcasinohızlıcasino giriştrendbettrendbet girişbahiscasinobahiscasino girişwinxbetwinxbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişlunabetlunabet girişlunabetlunabet giriş
Skip to content
Home » Roles v Nathan (t/a Manchester Assembly Rooms) 

Roles v Nathan (t/a Manchester Assembly Rooms) 

Roles v Nathan is a leading decision of the Court of Appeal concerning the scope of an occupier’s duty towards skilled visitors under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. It clarifies how far an occupier is required to protect professional workmen against risks that are ordinarily incidental to their calling. 

The case is significant for interpreting section 2(3)(b) of the Act, which allows an occupier to expect that a person engaged in a specialist occupation will recognise and guard against dangers inherent in their work. It also addresses section 2(4)(a), dealing with whether warnings can discharge an occupier’s duty.

Through this case, the Court of Appeal — led by Lord Denning MR with Harman LJ concurring and Pearson LJ dissenting — examined the limits of the occupier’s liability when clear warnings had been issued, and when the risk was one that professionals should reasonably have anticipated.

Facts of Roles v Nathan

In Roles v Nathan, two brothers, Donald and Joseph Roles, both chimney sweeps by trade, were engaged by Mr Nathan, the occupier of the Manchester Assembly Rooms, to clean and seal flues connected to a central heating system. The system operated on a coke-fired boiler, and the flues had become hazardous due to the emission of carbon monoxide gas. This gas, though odourless and invisible, is deadly and was a well-known occupational hazard for those who worked with boilers and chimneys.

The brothers had been repeatedly warned about the danger by an experienced heating engineer named Mr Collingwood, who instructed them not to work while the fire was burning and not to remain in the alcove for long. They ignored his warnings, insisting that they were experts and knew their job. At one stage, Mr Collingwood was forced to remove them from the premises to prevent them from inhaling dangerous fumes. He later made it clear that the sweeps were not to carry out any further work until the fires had been extinguished.

Despite this, the brothers returned later that evening, after Mr Collingwood had left, to complete the sealing work while the boiler fire was still burning. During this unauthorised work, they were overcome by fumes and found dead the following morning in the basement. Their widows brought an action against Mr Nathan, claiming damages under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 for breach of the common duty of care owed to visitors.

Legal Issue

The main question before the Court of Appeal in Roles v Nathan was whether the occupier, Mr Nathan, owed a duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 for the deaths of the chimney sweeps who had disregarded express safety warnings. Specifically, the court had to determine:

  1. Whether the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning was a “special risk ordinarily incident” to the calling of chimney sweeps, within the meaning of section 2(3)(b); and
  2. Whether the warnings given were sufficient to discharge the occupier’s duty under section 2(4)(a).

Relevant Statutory Provisions

Section 2(3)(b) — Skilled Visitors

“An occupier may expect that a person, in the exercise of his calling, will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it, so far as the occupier leaves him free to do so.”

Section 2(4)(a) — Warnings

“Where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger of which he had been warned by the occupier, the warning is not to be treated without more as absolving the occupier from liability, unless in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe.”

These provisions were central to the reasoning in Roles v Nathan.

Roles v Nathan Judgement

The Court of Appeal held that the occupier was not liable for the deaths of the chimney sweeps. The majority — Lord Denning MR and Harman LJ — allowed the appeal, finding that the deaths resulted from risks inherent in the profession and that the occupier had done all that was reasonably expected by issuing repeated and adequate warnings. Pearson LJ dissented on the facts.

Reasoning of the Majority

Risks ordinarily incident to the calling

Lord Denning MR, giving the leading judgement in Roles v Nathan, observed that the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 had replaced the earlier, confusing common law distinctions between “invitees” and “licensees” with a single common duty of care to all lawful visitors. However, the Act also recognised that the level of care owed depended on the circumstances, including the visitor’s skill and experience.

Referring to section 2(3)(b), Lord Denning MR explained that when a householder or occupier calls in a specialist — such as a chimney sweep, heating engineer, or electrician — the occupier may reasonably expect that the specialist will understand and protect themselves from dangers that arise out of the defect or hazard they are employed to handle. The occupier is not obliged to “watch over him to see that he comes to no harm.”

Applying this to Roles v Nathan, the court found that carbon monoxide exposure was a risk “ordinarily incident” to the work of chimney sweeps. The brothers were experienced professionals who should have known that it was unsafe to work while the fire was alight. Therefore, the occupier was not responsible for the danger, which fell within the scope of the sweeps’ professional responsibility.

Adequate warnings under section 2(4)(a)

Even if a duty of care had existed, the court held that it was fully discharged. Lord Denning MR emphasised that the sweeps had been clearly and repeatedly warned not to work while the fire was burning, and to avoid staying too long in the alcove. The warnings were sufficient to make them “reasonably safe” had they heeded them. Their decision to ignore the advice and return at night, while the fire was still burning, was the direct cause of their deaths.

The case was contrasted with situations where a visitor has no choice but to face a danger, such as being forced to cross a defective bridge without an alternative route. In Roles v Nathan, however, the brothers were free to avoid the danger entirely by following the explicit warnings given.

Distinguishing from unrelated dangers

Lord Denning MR added that the occupier’s exemption from liability applied only to risks connected with the visitor’s calling. If the deaths had been caused by a defect unrelated to chimney sweeping — for example, a collapsing staircase — the result might have been different. The ruling in Roles v Nathan therefore confined the scope of the exception under section 2(3)(b) to professional risks, not general hazards.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Roles v Nathan (t/a Manchester Assembly Rooms) [1963] 1 WLR 1117 is a defining case on the duty owed to skilled workers under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. The Court of Appeal held that the occupier was not liable for the deaths of two chimney sweeps who ignored express warnings about carbon monoxide fumes — a risk inherent in their profession.