Colvilles Ltd v Devine
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Reid,Lord Hodson,Lord Guest,Lord Upjohn,Lord Donovan |
| Judgment Date | 11 March 1969 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1969] UKHL J0311-1 |
| Docket Number | No. 4. |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 11 March 1969 |
[1969] UKHL J0311-1
Lord Reid
Lord Hodson
Lord Guest
Lord Upjohn
Lord Donovan
House of Lords
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause Colvilles Limited against Devine (A.P.), that the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Thursday the 23d, as on Monday the 27th and Tuesday the 28th, days of January last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Colvilles Limited, having a place of business at Ravenscraig Works, Motherwell, praying, That the matter of the Interlocutors set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary in Scotland (Lord Avonside) of the 1st of December 1966 and also an Interlocutor of the Lords of Session there of the Second Division of the 8th of March 1968, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Interlocutors 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 Case of Patrick Devine (Assisted Person), lodged in answer to the said Appeal; 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 Interlocutors of the 1st day of December 1966, and of the 8th day of March 1968, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same are hereby, Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the Appellants do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondent the Costs incurred by him in respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments: And it is also further Ordered, That unless the Costs, certified as aforesaid, shall be paid to the party entitled to the same within one calendar month from the date of the Certificate thereof, the Cause shall be, and the same is hereby, remitted back to the Court of Session in Scotland, or to the Judge acting as Vacation Judge, to issue such Summary Process or Diligence for the recovery of such Costs as shall be lawful and necessary.
My Lords,
I agree with your Lordships that this appeal should be dismissed.
My Lords,
I concur.
My Lords,
The Respondent was injured at the Appellants' Ravenscraig Steel Works when he jumped from a platform about fifteen feet above ground. His action was the result of his having been put in a state of fear for his own safety occasioned by a very violent explosion which occurred some 75 yards away in proximity to a converter plant. This plant was used for the manufacture of steel and the explosion took place following on a fire in a flexible hose which was used for conveying oxygen from an inlet pipe to a lance used for injecting oxygen into the converter containing about 100 tons of molten metal. The process by which oxygen was used for the purpose of a more rapid heating of the metal to the desired temperature was an Austrian improvement on the more traditional method. The oxygen originated from the British Oxygen Company's works and entered the Appellants' premises by means of a pipe extending to about 1 mile in length. There is no dispute that the Respondent's action in jumping off the platform was in consequence of the violent explosion and no question, therefore, arises as to the liability of the Appellants for the accident if negligence against them is established. The Lord Ordinary found for the Respondent and awarded him £1,350 damages. The Second Division (Lord Walker dissenting) adhered to his interlocutor.
The Respondent accepts that his only case against the Appellants is on the basis of the maxim res ipsa loquitur. The doctrine emanates from the well known passage of Erle C.J. in Scott v. London & St. Katherine Docks Co. (1863) 3 H. & C. 596 at page 601 which is to the following effect:
"There must be reasonable evidence of negligence. But where the thing is shewn to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care."
The Lord Justice Clerk has examined very carefully the applicability of the doctrine and has reached the conclusion that it does apply to the circumstances of this case. While I agree with the Lord Justice Clerk that the maxim is of limited ambit, I am not satisfied that any of the criticisms made by the Appellants' counsel have any validity. I agree with the conclusion of the Lord Justice Clerk with which Lord Wheatley and Lord Milligan concurred. Lord Walker who dissented and did not think the maxim applicable, did so upon the view that he was not satisfied upon the evidence that oxygen hoses do not burst in the ordinary course of things if those who have the management of them use proper care. The res which is said to speak for itself was the explosion. I must say that without evidence to the contrary I should have thought it self evident that an explosion of such violence that causes fear of imminent danger to the workers does not occur in the ordinary course of things in a steel works...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- MA Clyde v Wong Ah Mei and Another
- Karthiyayani and Another v Lee Leong Sin and Another
-
McDyer v The Celtic Football and Athletic Company Ltd (No.1)
...averments relating to strict liability were irrelevant (p 390I–391B); and reclaiming motionallowed in part. Devine v Colvilles LtdSC 1969 SC (HL) 67 applied. Colin McDyer brought an action of reparation for damages in the Court of Session against The Celtic Football and Athletic Company Lim......
- East Demerara Water Conservancy Board v Saliman and Others and; East Demerara Water Conservancy Board v Ivan Samaroo and Others
-
Subject Index
...ofMcCann) v Crown Court atManchester [2002] UKHL 39, [2002] 3WLR 1313 ..........................69–70, 147Colvilles Ltd v Devine [1969] 1 WLR 475........................................................ 228Condron v United Kingdom (2000) 31EHRR 1 .............. 35, 36, 143, 186, 189AM v Ital......
-
Burden of Proof in Undue Influence: Common Law and Codes on Collision Course
...1 QB 596; Ward v TescoStores Ltd [1976]1 WLR 810.37 Ballard v North British Railway Co. 1923 SC (HL) 43 at 54; Colvilles Ltd v Devine [1969] 1 WLR 475 at479; Lloyde v West Midlands Gas Board [1971] 1 WLR 749 at 755.38 See e.g. M. A. Jones, Textbook on Torts, 7th edn (Blackstone Press: Londo......