In a trial of Hooke Highways Limited's liability, the High Court answered "no" to whether a trainee operative's death from a fallen tree during a Red Weather Warning was reasonably foreseeable by his employer.
Key facts
- Who: Employers whose staff travel for work in severe weather, and families bringing fatal accident claims against employers
- From: 31 July 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: Teresa White & Anor v Hooke Highways Limited & Anor [2026] EWHC 2020 (KB)
In Teresa White & Anor v Hooke Highways Limited & Anor [2026] EWHC 2020 (KB), Master Šabić KC decided the liability of the first defendant, Hooke Highways Limited, after a trial on 14 and 15 July 2026. Judgment was handed down in the King's Bench Division of the High Court on 31 July 2026.
Background
Jack Bristow, aged 23, was a trainee Traffic Management Operative with Hooke Highways. On 18 February 2022 the van he was travelling in was struck by a fallen tree during Storm Eunice. He was trapped in the cabin and died at the scene. His colleague Callum Smith, who was driving, survived.
The two men were returning from collecting traffic equipment from Old Woking Road, which a client had asked to be removed by 9.00am. They had volunteered for the job. On 17 February 2022 the Met Office had issued a Red Weather Warning covering coastal areas in the southwest, with Oxfordshire and Hampshire under an Amber warning. At 3.44am on 18 February it issued a Red Weather Warning covering essentially the entire southeast, including both counties, from 10.00am to 3.00pm.
Mr Bristow's parents, as personal representatives of his estate, claimed damages for the estate and for his dependants. The claim against the second defendant, the landowner from whose land the tree fell, was not decided and will be determined later.
The question
The first issue was whether Mr Bristow's death was reasonably foreseeable. The court also considered whether the risk assessment and mitigation were adequate.
The decision
On the first issue, the Master concluded that the death was not reasonably foreseeable.
The reasoning
The Master found the Red Weather Warning did not make a fatal accident from a fallen tree on the road a real or sufficient probability. It was more likely than in ordinary weather, but it was a remote possibility. The warning was not a "stay at home" order, and the advice from the police and National Highways contained no prohibition on travel.
The journey used ordinary roads and was not inherently dangerous. Hooke Highways had no control over the tree or the highway, Mr Bristow's closeness to the tree was incidental and fleeting, and the van was neither defective nor unsafe.
The Master had no expert or other evidence on common practice or industry standards, and said that absence was significant. The evidence that did exist suggested Hooke Highways was doing nothing different from other employers, whose staff were also on the roads. The Master agreed that the standard of care the claimants argued for could have arbitrary effects and risked departing from fault-based liability.
On risk assessment, the Master found Hooke Highways had a risk assessment policy and had properly identified the substantive and foreseeable risks. Its measures included a prohibition on lone working, liaison between depots and checks on operatives out in the weather. The absence of an assessment of a particular risk cannot, without more, decide the scope of an employer's duty.
What this means for employees, families and employers
The ruling concerned one employer's liability and decided that, on the facts and evidence in this case, the death was not reasonably foreseeable. The court placed weight on the fact that no evidence was put forward on what other employers did or should do in Red Weather Warnings.
The claim against the landowner has not been decided.
Sources
- Teresa White & Anor v Hooke Highways Limited & Anor [2026] EWHC 2020 (KB), High Court (King's Bench Division), 31 July 2026