Bullock v G John Power (Agencies) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE DENNING,LORD JUSTICE MORRIS |
| Judgment Date | 20 January 1956 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1956] EWCA Civ J0120-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 20 January 1956 |
[1956] EWCA Civ J0120-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Lord Justice Denning
Lord Justice Morris and
Lord Justice Parker
(Administratrix of the Estate of Solomon Bullock, deed.)
MR JOHN THOMPSON, Q.C. and MR E.G.H. BERESFORD (instructed by Messrs E.P. Rugg & Co., accents for Messrs Buller, Jeffries & Kenshole, Birmingham) appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Defendants).
MR R.F. LEVY, Q.C. and MR C.G. HERON (instructed by Messrs Rabnett, Conway & Co., Birmingham) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Plaintiff).
On the 23rd July, 1952, in the middle of the night, there was an accident in a factory at West Bromwich, and Mr Bullock was killed. His widow now brings action against the employers alleging that they were at fault at common law or, alternatively, were guilty of a breach of section 14 of the Factories Act, 1937. The work was drawing out wire. There was a long piece of wire just over half an inch thick – l/32nd of an inch thicker than half an inch – which had to be reduced to half an inch. In order to do thin it was pulled through ahole of half an inch diameter under great force, so as to reduce it by pressure down from 17/32nds of an inch to half an inch. The pulling end was on a drum which revolved by means of an electric motor. That drum pulled the wire round and round itself in a coil. When the piece of wire was finished, the end of it was loose and swung outwards from the drum. There was a guard or fence for most of the way round the drum so that the wire would not flap out at the side. On this occasion all that we know about the accident (fur unfortunately the man was killed) is that a workman some few yards away heard the panning of the wire against the guard and a little later looked round and there was Mr Bullock on the ground. The police found a piece of human hair on the end of the wire. The inference which the Judge drew (which must be accepted) was that one end of the wire, the loose end, had in some way ridden up over the guard and had struck Mr Bullock on the head and killed him.
The claim at common law for negligence against the employers failed because the Judge was satisfied that no one could have anticipated any accident from this Machine and the wire as it then was. No such accident had been heard of before. The machine has been operated in just the same way ever since and no other accident has been known; and, indeed, the witnesses could not explain how this happened. The Judge acquitted the employers of negligence and there is no appeal from that finding. The question in the case is on the Factories Act. It is said that this was a "dangerous part of machinery" and ought to have been securely fenced within section 14, subsection 1, of the Act.
The House of Lords in a case of Nicholls v. F. Austin (Layton) Ltd., (1946 Appeal Cases, page 493) pointed out that the section itself draws a distinction between parts of machinery, on the one hand, and materials or articles which are in motion in it on the other hand. In that case, where a splinter of wood came out of a woodworking machine which was securely fenced, itwas held that the wood which was being worked was not a dangerous part. In this case the Judge has held that this revolving drum, plus the wire, was a dangerous part of machinery. On Reading through the Judgments in Nicholls v. Austin...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v F E Callow (Engineers;) Ltd
...in the machine as distinct from parts of the machinery (see for instance Eaves v. Morris Motors Ltd. [1961] 2 Q.B. 385, Bullock v. G. John Power (Agencies) Ltd. [1956] 1 W.L.R. 171); (3) The dangers against which the fencing is required do not include dangers to be apprehended from the ej......
-
Eaves v Morris Motors Ltd
...& Coles (unreported, 19th July, 1956) and ( Rutherford v. Glanville 1958 1 All England Reports, 532). 16 In ( Bullock v. Power 1956 1 All England Reports, 498) this court decided that a plaintiff could not recover in respect of injury caused by a loose end of wire which was being wound on a......
-
Wearing v Pirelli Ltd
...for he never came in contact with it but by contact with the beading on the drum, which was an inch or so in thickness. They relied on Bullock v. Power [1956] 1 W.L.R. 171 where the injury was directly caused by material and not by the machine, by a piece of wire which had passed through t......
-
Hugh Wearing (Appellant – Plaintiff) v Pirelli Ltd (Respondents – Defendants)
...of Section 14: for as the judge saw it, regarding himself particularly as bound by the case of Bullock -v- John power (Agencies) Ltd. (1956 1 W.L.R. p. 171), there was no such breach. 11 Section 14 of the 1961 Factories Act re-enacted with some variations the way in which it is set out and ......