Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 17,600+ case briefs...

Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

England and Wales Court of Appeals
1 Q.B. 1 (1964)



Doughty (plaintiff) sued his employer, Turner Manufacturing Company Limited (Turner) (defendant), for the burns he sustained when hot molten metal from a cauldron exploded onto him. Turner’s cauldrons had been in use throughout England and the United States for 20 years. Doughty's accident occurred when a worker accidentally knocked the cauldron's compound asbestos concrete lid off, causing it to slip into the mixture. Trial evidence suggested there was no splash when the lid entered the mixture and no immediate injuries to the bystanders. In fact, two workers approached the cauldron to watch the lid as it slipped beneath the surface of the mixture. One or two minutes later the mixture exploded and thrust molten metal onto Doughty, leaving him severely burned. The evidence also showed that, prior to the accident, no one supposed the immersion of an asbestos concrete compound in a molten metal mixture could lead to an explosion. However, subsequent testing showed that an asbestos concrete compound, if immersed in a molten metal mixture, will release water and the resulting chemical reaction will cause the mixture to explode. The trial judge ruled in Doughty's favor. Even though Turner reasonably could not have foreseen the explosive consequences of immersing the asbestos concrete compound in the molten metal mixture, the judge said Turner should have known: (1) the escape of any molten metal mixture from the cauldron, for example by splashing, could burn bystanders, and (2) some foreign substances, if immersed in the mixture, could cause the mixture to explode. Therefore, Turner should have taken precautions to prevent splashes and explosions, and Turner's negligent failure to do so made Turner liable for Doughty's injuries. Turner appealed to the England and Wales Court of Appeals.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Pearce, J.)

Concurrence (Diplock, J.)

Concurrence (Harman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 458,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 458,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 17,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial