67
|
P a g e
The defendant, a ship owner, undertook to carry the plaintiff's sheep from a foreign port
to England. On the voyage some of the sheep were washed overboard by reason of the
defendant's neglect to take a precaution enjoined by an order of the Privy Council,
which was made under the authority of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act 1869,
s75.
It was held that the object of the statute and the order being to prevent the spread of
contagious disease among animals, and not to protect them against the perils of the sea,
the plaintiffs could not recover.
Nicholls v F. Austin Ltd [1946]
The plaintiff, while operating a circular saw belonging to her employers, the defendants,
was injured through a piece of wood flying out of the machine which was fenced so as to
comply with the requirements of the Woodworking Machinery Regulations 1922, which
by s150 of the Factories Act 1937 were to be deemed to have been made under that Act.
By s14 (1) every dangerous part of any machinery was to be securely fenced, and the
Secretary of State was given power to "make regulations requiring the fencing of
materials or articles which are dangerous while in motion in the machine" but none had
been made.
It was held by the House of Lords that the defendants were not in breach of any
statutory obligation, since the obligation to fence imposed by s14 (1) was an obligation
to guard against contact with any dangerous part of a machine and not to guard against
dangerous materials ejected from it, a matter depending solely on the making of
regulations under the discretionary power conferred by s14(3) on the Secretary of State
and not exercised by him.
Donaghey v Boulton & Paul Ltd [1968]
Donaghey was a workman employed by O'Brien & Co who were engaged by Boulton &
Paul Ltd (who were themselves sub-contractors) to lay asbestos sheets on the roof of an
aircraft hangar. Donaghey was working under the supervision of the foreman of O'Brian
&
Co. The foreman of Boulton & Paul Ltd was exercising some degree of general
supervision and was responsible for providing safety appliances for both their men and
those of the sub-contractors. The foreman instructed Donaghey to adjust a sheet of
asbestos and, in doing so he overbalanced and fell through a hole in the sheeting,
sustaining injury. Donaghey brought an action against Boulton & Paul Ltd alleging (inter
alia) breach of statutory duty.
It was held by the House of Lords: (1) that Boulton & Paul Ltd owed a duty under the
Building (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations 1948 inasmuch as they had not
divested themselves of the control of the work, which was accordingly being physically
performed by them. Ginty v Belmont Building Supplies [1959] 1 All ER 414
distinguished. (2) Regulation 31(3) (which provided for suitable and sufficient
equipment where work was being done on roofs) applied to this case and should have
been complied with by Boulton & Paul Ltd whose failure to supply crawling-boards was
the cause of the accident; it was immaterial that Donaghey fell, not through the fragile
material, but through a hole in the roof. Gorris v Scott (1874) LR 9 Ex 125,
distinguished.
