The relevant risk of injury for the purposes of the Shirt analysis is not confined to the specific mechanism of injury that materialised, but extends to the broader category of risk of which the defendant was or should have been aware — here, the risk of injury to employees climbing a fence from an uninspected surface. Where an employer knows employees engage in a particular activity on its premises, the duty of care requires inspection and maintenance of the area used for that activity, even if the specific hazard was unknown. The scope of the required inspection is proportionate to the specific location of the known risk, distinguishing cases like Vairy where the risk extended across a large area.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 47 later cases that cite this judgment.
9 of the 47 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.