It is noteworthy that the Court of Appeal’s exoneration of the occupier in General Cleaning Contractors Ltd v Christmas (1952) was not followed by the Court of Appeal in King v Smith and Another (1995). In this latter case, it was held that a window cleaner’s customer should be made responsible for ensuring that where his windows were capable of being cleaned from the inside, they were in proper working order to allow that to be done. Millett LJ remarking that, in the 40 years since Christmas was decided, it had become ‘well appreciated’ that cleaning windows from the outside sill could be a dangerous practice. Both the employer and the occupier of the premises were held liable for the cleaner’s injuries, resulting from a fall from a window ledge. However, the employer was held 70% to blame and the occupier had to bear only 30% of the responsibility. Similarly, in the following case, where the plaintiff had the status of employee rather than self-employed person the High Court so applied s2(5) as to find for the plaintiff. It held that a visiting worker, an employee of one other than the occupier, could not be said to have accepted a risk created by the occupier simply because he attempted to carry out the task his employer had set him. Thus, the visitor was enabled, as the employee had been since Smith v Baker & Sons (1891), to claim that there was an important difference between knowing of a risk and accepting it. BUNKER v CHARLES BRAND & SON LTD [1969] 2 QB 480 The plaintiff was sent by his employer (a contractor) to carry out modifications on a machine which was being used in the excavation of a tunnel (part of the Victoria Underground line). To get to the place where he had to work the plaintiff had to climb over the machine which was already sited in the tunnel. He slipped on rollers on the machine and injured his knee. The following extracts are from the judgment of O’Connor J in the High Court, beginning at p 486:

DOI link for It is noteworthy that the Court of Appeal’s exoneration of the occupier in General Cleaning Contractors Ltd v Christmas (1952) was not followed by the Court of Appeal in King v Smith and Another (1995). In this latter case, it was held that a window cleaner’s customer should be made responsible for ensuring that where his windows were capable of being cleaned from the inside, they were in proper working order to allow that to be done. Millett LJ remarking that, in the 40 years since Christmas was decided, it had become ‘well appreciated’ that cleaning windows from the outside sill could be a dangerous practice. Both the employer and the occupier of the premises were held liable for the cleaner’s injuries, resulting from a fall from a window ledge. However, the employer was held 70% to blame and the occupier had to bear only 30% of the responsibility. Similarly, in the following case, where the plaintiff had the status of employee rather than self-employed person the High Court so applied s2(5) as to find for the plaintiff. It held that a visiting worker, an employee of one other than the occupier, could not be said to have accepted a risk created by the occupier simply because he attempted to carry out the task his employer had set him. Thus, the visitor was enabled, as the employee had been since Smith v Baker & Sons (1891), to claim that there was an important difference between knowing of a risk and accepting it. BUNKER v CHARLES BRAND & SON LTD [1969] 2 QB 480 The plaintiff was sent by his employer (a contractor) to carry out modifications on a machine which was being used in the excavation of a tunnel (part of the Victoria Underground line). To get to the place where he had to work the plaintiff had to climb over the machine which was already sited in the tunnel. He slipped on rollers on the machine and injured his knee. The following extracts are from the judgment of O’Connor J in the High Court, beginning at p 486:

It is noteworthy that the Court of Appeal’s exoneration of the occupier in General Cleaning Contractors Ltd v Christmas (1952) was not followed by the Court of Appeal in King v Smith and Another (1995). In this latter case, it was held that a window cleaner’s customer should be made responsible for ensuring that where his windows were capable of being cleaned from the inside, they were in proper working order to allow that to be done. Millett LJ remarking that, in the 40 years since Christmas was decided, it had become ‘well appreciated’ that cleaning windows from the outside sill could be a dangerous practice. Both the employer and the occupier of the premises were held liable for the cleaner’s injuries, resulting from a fall from a window ledge. However, the employer was held 70% to blame and the occupier had to bear only 30% of the responsibility. Similarly, in the following case, where the plaintiff had the status of employee rather than self-employed person the High Court so applied s2(5) as to find for the plaintiff. It held that a visiting worker, an employee of one other than the occupier, could not be said to have accepted a risk created by the occupier simply because he attempted to carry out the task his employer had set him. Thus, the visitor was enabled, as the employee had been since Smith v Baker & Sons (1891), to claim that there was an important difference between knowing of a risk and accepting it. BUNKER v CHARLES BRAND & SON LTD [1969] 2 QB 480 The plaintiff was sent by his employer (a contractor) to carry out modifications on a machine which was being used in the excavation of a tunnel (part of the Victoria Underground line). To get to the place where he had to work the plaintiff had to climb over the machine which was already sited in the tunnel. He slipped on rollers on the machine and injured his knee. The following extracts are from the judgment of O’Connor J in the High Court, beginning at p 486: