68
|
P a g e
McCreesh v Courtaulds plc [1997]
McCreesh appealed against a finding dismissing his action against Courtaulds, his
employers, for negligence and breach of statutory duty following an accident in which
he suffered a cut across the palm of his left hand resulting in the amputation of his little
finger and severe diminution of function of the remaining fingers. M was the only joiner
employed by C and he had been in the job for nine weeks when the accident happened.
When he was shown the joinery workshop he was not given any instructions by the
safety officer as to how to use the circular saw and, although there was a guard available
for the saw, there was evidence that the guard had never been used. M's account as to
how the accident occurred was rejected and it was found that M had adopted an unsafe
procedure for cutting wood, a procedure he knew to be unsafe. It was held by the trial
judge that, although C's inadequate supervision was part of the background to the
accident, M was solely responsible for the accident.
It was held by the Court of Appeal, allowing the appeal and apportioning liability at 75
per cent to M and 25 per cent to C, that, as the judge found that C's lack of supervision
was part of the background to the accident, it was not open for him to exonerate C
entirely from breach of its statutory duty. The absence of instructions as to how to use
the saw safely and the practice of permitting the use of the saw unguarded constituted a
wrongful act leading to causation or contribution on the part of C. Ginty v Belmont
Building Supplies [1959] applied. In order to exonerate C, it would be necessary to have
found that M's adoption of an unsafe procedure was the sole cause of the accident and
that the accident would have occurred even if the saw had been guarded which was not
the case.
Whitby v Burt, Boulton & Hayward Ltd and another [1947]
The plaintiff was directed by the foreman of his employers, sub-contractors to the
occupiers of a factory, to ascend to a low-pitched attic in the factory, the horizontal base
of which was composed of corrugated iron sheets nailed on to wooden supports, and
then to crawl along the sheets and pull out the nails from above, so that the sheets could
be removed and used elsewhere in the factory. The occupiers had agreed with the sub-
contractors that the sheets should be removed, but had left the manner and method by
which they should be removed entirely to the sub-contractors. When the plaintiff had
removed most of the nails and sheets, one of the wooden supports, obviously
inadequate to bear the weight of a man, broke, and the plaintiff fell to the floor below
and was injured. It was held by the Court of Appeal:
(1)
that his employers, the sub-contractors, were liable to the plaintiff in damages at
common law in that they had failed to use reasonable care to lay out the work, so that it
should not be a source of danger to him, though the word "system" was hardly
appropriate in the case of work which was not repetitive; but that the occupiers of the
factory were not liable to the plaintiff. Speed v Thomas Swift & Co [1943] applied.
(2)
that the occupiers were liable to the plaintiff in damages under s26 (1) of the
Factories Act 1937, in that they had failed to provide and maintain, so far as was
