Bocock v Enfield Rolling Mills Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SINGLETON,LORD JUSTICE DENNING,LORD JUSTICE MORRIS |
| Judgment Date | 12 July 1954 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1954] EWCA Civ J0712-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Docket Number | 1953 B. No. 1138 |
| Date | 12 July 1954 |
[1954] EWCA Civ J0712-1
In the Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Lord Justice Singleton
Lord Justice Denning and
Lord Justice Morris
Counsel for the Appellant: MR D. CROOM-JOHNSON, instructed by Messrs Amphlett & Co.
Counsel for the Respondents: MR B. CAULFIELD, instructed by Messrs Hair & Co.
This is an appeal by Mr Leslie Robert Bocock in regard to the amount of damages awarded to him in an action tried before Judge and jury.
Mr Bocock was employed by Enfield Rolling Mills, Ltd., as a catcher. His work was very difficult and required agility and skill. He was 25 years old when he had an accident of a most unfortunate kind. In the Defendants' mill copper rods are passed through rollers on to a slope where they are caught and passed through another set of rollers. The rod is red hot during the process that it passes along the slope. There was a sort of metal guard, but while the Plaintiff was standing close to the place where the rods went something unusual happened and a red-hot rod jumped out and caught the Plaintiff's left ankle. He was very badly injured and he suffered a great deal. The ankle and foot were burned, and there were some burns on the hands. The tendon Achilles was injured so that it is virtually useless, and there is an unpleasant looking sore in the neighbourhood of the left heel. The accident occurred on the 4th June, 1952.
The action came on for trial before Mr Justice McKair and a jury on the 29th April, 1954, nearly two years afterwards, and there was still an unpleasant sore near the tendon Achilles. The Plaintiff has lost a good deal of the use of the left foot. He will never again be able to do the work that he was engaged upon. That involved the catching of the rods as they passed along by means of a pair of tongs. He will never have sufficient movement to do anything of that kind again. He has had a number of operations, and he must have undergone great pain. At one period skin grafting was necessary, and the grafting was done from the calf of the right leg on to the left ankle, and though that operation succeeded to some extent, there was an unfortunate result in thatsome kind of infection had spread to the right leg, which means there is some danger of osteo-arthritis in the right ankle in years to come. There was some uncertainty as to what the actual position was. Two doctors regarded it as a possibility that arthritis would supervene. One surgeon said it was highly probable, or, at least, probable, that in 10 to 15 years there would be some arthritis in the right ankle. That, of course, is much less serious than the injury to the left ankle.
At the time of the accident Mr Bocock was earning almost £18 a week on this arduous occupation. He now earns about £8. 15s. 0d. a week as a check-weighman. The earnings in his old occupation had fallen, and if he had been working at the time of the trial he would have been earning £15. 18s. 3d. a week, so that there was at the time of the trial a loss of earnings of about £7 a week, and, as far as one can see, a good deal of that is likely to be a permanent loss, though one does not know. He is still with the same employers working as a check-weighman. He returned to them as soon as he was fit, and he is reasonably sure to keep his occupation there. It is difficult to see that he will ever be able to live a very active life. He walks with a stick, and he cannot take part in a good many of the amusements in which he took part before his accident.
The case was summed up to the jury by the Judge; the jury retired. They had been told that there was an agreed out-of-pocket loss (which was nearly all loss of wages) up to the time of the trial, of £1,100. When they came back to Court after a 1¼ hours retirement they awarded a sum of £2,750 as general damages, so that the total damages came to the sum of £3,850.
Against that verdict and the judgment which followed the Plaintiff appeals to this Court, and MrCroom-Johnson has submitted to the Court that there ought to be a new trial on the issue of damages, for the damages awarded, he submitted, were very much too low.
On an appeal of this kind it is not open to the Court to assess the damages if the Court should think that the jury's verdict is wrong for one reason or another. All that the Court can do is to direct a new trial if the Court is satisfied that there are good grounds for so doing.
Mr Croom-Johnson submitted that the damages were very much too small, and, furthermore, that there was misdirection on the part of the Judge which would entitle him to a new trial.
I propose to deal with the question of misdirection first. Mr Justice McNair early in his Summing-Up said to the jury: "What you have to do is a very difficult task, a task which, I am afraid, persons in my position have to perform daily, and that is to try to evaluate in terms of money the difference between this man and his prospects before the accident and this man and his prospects now, and in addition to give fair compensation for the pain and suffering he has had in the past and will have in the future." In those words the Judge put before the jury what their duty was. He went into the evidence in some detail. It is said that he erred in two respects. On page 4 of the direction of the Judge to the jury this passage appears: "There is really not much dispute between the doctors as to the left ankle. It is summed-up by Mr Rose in this way: He describes the loss of inversion and aversion (that is, the movements backwards and forwards) and says that is likely to be permanent. He states the opinion that he is unlikely ever to regain sufficient agility for him to risk proximity to dangerous materials. He is at present only fit for sedentary work involving a minimum of walking or travelling."It is said that the last sentence is not a true statement of Mr Rose's evidence, and it was Mr Rose's evidence with which the Judge was then dealing. When reference is made to the evidence of Mr Rose I find that he was asked: "Quite apart from the physical condition of the foot, is there any other reason why, in your opinion, he is unlikely to go back to that work? (A) I think it must be difficult and quite a dangerous job, and I think the effect of once having been injured at it must undoubtedly have an effect on him. I think a man must be in a top physical condition to do this job, and if he has been seriously injured in doing it, I feel he might be rather unsure and unwilling. (Q) It is a question of confidence? (A) Yes. (Q) But apart from confidence, do you think he is physically able to do it? (A) Not at present, no, emphatically not."
It appears quite clear to me it is from that sentence that the Judge took the sentence in his Summing-Up of which Mr Croom-Johnson complains. The witness said that the Plaintiff was not fit at present; emphatically not. The next question was: "Do you think he ever will be?", and the witness answered: "I honestly do not think so." That was the substance of his evidence, and that, as far as I can gather from the learned Counsel, was not contested on either side. The issue was clear. The use by the Judge of the words "He...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v Musial
...I the case of Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Limited, ad cited by Lord Justice Singloton in the case of Bocock V. Enfield Rolling Mills Limited, which is reported in 1954 Weekly Law Reports. On page 1306 Lord Justice Singleton says: In Davies v. Powell Duffyn Associated Coll......
-
Ward v James
...is very different. In case after case this court has held that it cannot interfere with a jury as readily as with a judge; see Bobcock v. Enfield Rolling Mills, (1954) 1 Weekly Law Reports, page 1303; Scott v. Musical, (1959) 2 Queen's Bench Division, page 429; Morey v. Woodfield, (1964) 1 ......
-
Broome v Cassell & Company Ltd
...to the above cases counsel for the Respondent cited Youssoupoff v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (1934) 50 T.L.R. 581, at pp. 583, 584; Bocock v. Enfield Rolling Mills [1954] 1 W.L.R. 1303; Scott v. Musial [1959] 2 Q.B. 429 at 436; Morey v. Wood field [1964] 1 W.L.R. 16; McCarey v. Associated New......
-
Morey v Woodfield (No 2)
...it is such as to show that the jury have failed to perform their duty". Lord Wright's words were adopted by this Court in Bocock v. Enfield Rolling Mills, 1954, 1 Weekly Law Reports, page 1303. 14 Nor can damages be treated as excessive merely because they are large. "Excess implies some st......