Automatic Woodturning Company Ltd v Stringer
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Viscount Simonds,Lord Morton of Henryton,Lord Radcliffe,Lord Tucker,Lord Somervell of Harrow |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 1956 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1956] UKHL J1220-1 |
| Date | 20 December 1956 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1956] UKHL J1220-1
House of Lords
Viscount Simonds
Lord Morton of Henryton
Lord Radcliffe
Lord Tucker
Lord Somervell of Harrow
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause Automatic Woodturning Company Limited against Stringer (Spinster and Infant by Thomas Stringer her father and next friend), that the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Tuesday the 27th, as on Wednesday the 28th, days of November last, upon the Petition and Appeal of The Automatic Woodturning Company Limited, whose registered office is situated at Knowles Street, Millfield Road, Widnes, in the County of Lancaster, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 12th of January 1956, so far as regards the words, "that a New Trial be had between the Parties upon the issue of negligence under Common Law only and that the total amount of damages remain at the sum of One thousand two hundred and fifty pounds (£1,250) and that the costs of the former Trial and of this Appeal do abide the event of such New Trial", might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Petition and Cross Appeal of Jean Stringer (Spinster and Infant by Thomas Stringer her father and next friend), praying that the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 12th of January 1956, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, and that the Petitioner might have the relief prayed for in the Cross Appeal, or such other relief in the premises, as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of Jean Stringer (Spinster and Infant by Thomas Stringer her father and next friend); and also upon the printed Case of The Automatic Woodturning Company Limited, lodged in the said Original and Cross Appeals; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 12th day of January 1956, so far as stated to be appealed against in the said Original Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Reversed: And it is further Ordered, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 12th day of January 1956, so far as regards the words: "It is Ordered that this Appeal be allowed and the Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Oliver dated the 20th day of June 1955 in favour of the Plaintiff for the sum of Six hundred and twenty-five pounds (£625) with Costs be wholly set aside", be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Cross Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the said Jean Stringer (Spinster and Infant by Thomas Stringer her father and next friend) do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Automatic Woodturning Company Limited the Costs incurred by them in respect of the said Original and Cross Appeals to this House, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments: And it is also further Ordered, That the Cause be, and the same is hereby, remitted back to the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, to do therein as shall be just and consistent with this Judgment.
My Lords,
On the 7th January, 1954, the Respondent, a girl then eighteen years of age, met with an accident while working as a sawyer in the Appellants' works at Widnes in Lancashire. It resulted in the partial amputation of two fingers of her right hand.
On the 22nd July, 1954, she commenced this action against the Respondents, in which she alleged that her injury was due to breaches of statutory duty or negligence on the part of the Appellants. Particulars of this allegation were given, of which in view of the course taken in the proceedings I think it necessary to mention only (1) the plea that the Appellants failed to fence the circular saw at which she was working as required by Regulation 10 ( c) of the Use of Woodworking Machinery Regulations 1922, and (2) the plea that they failed to provide or maintain a safe system of work under which ( a) the said circular saw would have been securely fenced and maintained, and ( b) she would not have been required or permitted to remove surplus wood without stopping the circular saw or with inadequate instruments. Numerous other particulars were given, but they were abandoned in the course of the trial, as was the above-mentioned plea in regard to the Use of Woodworking Machinery Regulations.
It appears that the Respondent met with her accident in this way. The power-driven circular saw at which she was working had been properly set by a skilled man for cutting lengths of timber to make chair legs. As she operated the saw, there was left after each cut upon the table of the saw a piece of wood called an offcut. These offcuts accumulated on the side of the blade away from where the Respondent stood to make the cuts. To remove them she was provided with a push-stick which she was instructed to use for that purpose. She was told to walk round to the far side of the blade before using it. She was told never to use her hands. She would, she said, have got into severe trouble if she had not used the push-stick. How the accident happened was not explained. In examination in chief she said:
"I had the stick in my right hand, I just went to flick the offcuts off the side of the bench and I felt a little prick on my hand and when I looked I saw the tips of my fingers lying on the bench."
In cross-examination the following questions and answers were asked and given:
"Q. How long was your push-stick approximately? A. About twelve inches. Q. Did you have the push-stick in your right hand? A. Yes. Q. How did you get your hand cut? A. I do not know. Q. Have you no idea at all? A. No. Q. If you are using the push-stick, your hand should not go anywhere near the saw, should it? A. No."
The Respondent was accepted by the trial Judge, Oliver, J., as an honest witness, and so, as I say, the accident was unexplained.
It is necessary now to mention certain matters which took place in the course of the trial. After the Respondent's evidence her counsel expressly abandoned all the allegations made on her behalf in these words:
"In view of the answer which my client has given, I feel that my case rests entirely upon the last part of the case, that the system of allowing her to flick them like that was wrong".
He was referring to the system of removing the offcuts from the table of the circular saw with a push-stick. To the learned Judge's question:
"You do not trouble any more about the Factories Act",
he answered: "No". I wish to emphasise that this took place after the conclusion of the Respondent's case and that there was no question of the exclusion of any evidence tendered on her behalf.
In these circumstances the Appellants called no other evidence than that of their foreman, who had had thirty-five years' experience in the sawmills business. He explained that the saw could be switched on and off with an electric button; that, when switched off, it ran for about half a minute and, while running down, it was still dangerous, that it was not the practice to stop the saw while removing the offcuts, he had never seen it done in this or any other firm, and that assuming a push-stick was used it did not involve any danger.
The evidence being concluded, it appears that at some stage during the argument by counsel the learned Judge intimated his opinion that the Appellants had not been guilty of negligence at common law. He did not give a formal judgment at this stage, for in the meantime he had suggested that the Respondent could allege that the circular saw was not fenced in accordance with the requirements of section 14 of the Factories Act, 1937. The Statement of Claim was formally amended so as to include this plea. The hearing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Harb v King Fahd Bin Addul Aziz (Nos. 1 & 2)
- Purse v Purse
- Barder v Caluori
-
Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley
...the facts of the particular case, I find support for this view in the judgment of the House in Automatic Wood-Turning Co Ltd v Stringer [1957] AC 544, 555. In that case the Court of Appeal had ordered a new trial on the issue of negligence, but the order was set aside and Lord Morton of Hen......