Daniels v Ford Motor Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE DENNING,LORD JUSTICE PARKER,LORD JUSTICE MORRIS |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 1954 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1954] EWCA Civ J1220-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 20 December 1954 |
[1954] EWCA Civ J1220-3
In the Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal.
Lord Justice Denning,
Lord Justice Morris and
Lord Justice Parker.
MR F. W. BENEY, Q. C., and MR BERNARD CAULFIELD (instructed by Messrs A. E. Wyeth & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Defendants).
MR R. MARVEN EVERETT, Q. C., and MR. D. P. GROOM-JOHNSON (instructed by Messrs Pattinson & Brewer) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Plaintiff).
We need not trouble you, Mr. Beney.
I will ask Lord Justice Parker to give the first Judgment.
This is an appeal by the Ford Motor Company Limited from a Judgment of Mr. Justice Finnemore given on the 28thOctober of this year awarding a Mr. Daniels, the Respondent, who was an employee of theirs, damages for an eye injury which he suffered while at work. He was working at the time in what is called the "knockout" department at the Appellants' factory at Dagenham where castings are apparently brought along conveyor belts and have to be knocked out. Admittedly the Plaintiff and the others working in that department were engaged in the process of fettling, a process in which there is a well-known risk of injury to the eye, not merely from sand and dust but from fragments of metal flying. It is one of the processes to which Section 49 of the Factories Act, 1937, applies, and accordingly it became the duty of the Appellants to provide the Respondent (to use the words of the Statute) with "suitable goggles ….. to protect the eyes". On the day on which he met his accident the Respondent was wearing goggles of a type which were referred to throughout the evidence as the "red" goggles. They were, however, apt (as indeed all goggles are, to some greater or less extent) to mist over, either from perspiration from the wearer or from condensation of the outside atmosphere, or, indeed, as one of the witnesses said, by the wearer's breath. While at work on this day the goggles misted over and the Respondent then pulled then an inch or two away from the nose (they being attached by an elastic to the back of the head), and pulled them away sufficiently to insert a finger and thumb and clean the lenses. Most unfortunately, on this occasion, although the goggles at the time they were pulled away must still have afforded some 90 per cent, protection and although the man had his hands up there holding the goggles and cleaning the lenses, a bit of metal, knocked off by a fellow worker presumably, hit his right eye, causing injury, which happily turned out not to be serious.
The position with regard to these goggles is stated by the learned Judge in this way. He paid this, and it is abundantly borne out by the evidence, "I think the fair result of the evidence, first of all, is this — and I think it ought to besaid — that there is no doubt at all that the Ford Motor Company have given very careful consideration to this problem. They have considered all kinds of goggles. They have had various kinds on display. They of for to their workmen different sorts. so that each man, within reasonable limits, can make his own choice. Everybody knows that men can be extremely fussy about goggles. Not only have the men had a measure of choice, but obviously from the evidence of Mr. Thomas — nobody challenged it, or wished to challenge it — enquiries have been made and tests have been made and a considerable amount of attention and experiment has been given to this matter by the Defendant Company to try to produce a perfect set of goggles. The result of it all is that so far nobody has produced, so for as I can see, a perfect set of goggles."
Mr. Thomas, who had been the Safety Officer of the Ford Motor Company for some 11 years, was quite clearly a witness who impressed the learned Judge, and the learned Judge goes on a little later in his Judgment to say this: "Mr. Thomas summarised admirably all the points which had to be considered, whether yon should use Triplex safety glass or whether you should use perspex, whether the sides should be opaque, such as aluminum with holes in it or gauze, or perspex again, and points for and against these goggles were paraded before me. I think the result is that whatever pair of goggles in fact you adopt there are advantages and there are disadvantages. It may well be that, in the result, the red pair of goggles, which the Ford Company say in spite of the other models they have had produced are still preferred by the great majority of their men who work in the foundry, are as good and as useful a pair as has been produced".
As I have said, unfortunately one of the disadvantages of these red goggles is that apparently they are apt to mist over to some degree more than other goggles. On the other hand, they have marked advantages (I need not go through them), certainly for fettling, over other goggles which can be obtained. One of the matters, apparently, that weighed with these Defendants was thatif one had merely gauze at the sides or openings which would allow considerable ventilation, there would be the grave disadvantage in that it would not afford adequate protection from flying metal. The learned Judge, however, while at pains to point out that no sort of blame attached to the Appellants, held that they were in breach of their Statutory duty in that these goggles had to be rubbed clean from time to time and when this was being done they did not (as, indeed, this accident shows) afford...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bux v Slough Metals Ltd
...that with them "the misting up is not a problem", but that "no goggles are proof against misting" The learned Judge adverted to Daniels v. Ford Motor Company (1955 1 W. L. R., 76), where Lord Justice barker said at page 79 that "'suitable' cannot mean 'perfect'" (but added that "something m......
-
The Queen v Otis Elevator Co. (H.k.) Ltd.
...be successful, if the trial magistrate maintained a clear distinction between a satisfactory anchorage and satisfactory fittings. (1) [1955] 1 W.L.R.76 (2) [1961] Representation: Mr. A.H. Sakhrani, Q.C. with Mr. L.K.Y. Chan (Wilkinson & Grist) for Appellant Mr. H. Macleod, Crown Counsel, fo......
-
Ian Thom Klein v William Neill & Son (St. Helens) Ltd
...as we are differing from the learned judge. He did not have the advantage of thecitation to him of the decision of this Court in Daniels v. Ford Motor Co. Ltd. ( 1955 1 Weekly Law Reports 76) and in particular of the passage in the judgment of Lord Justice Parker (as he then was) at page 79......
-
Baxter v Carron Company
...to say that they were all right for the work if they did not fit the workman. The second case was Daniels v. Ford Motor Co., Ltd.WLR,[1955] 1 W. L. R. 76, also a section 49 case, where Parker, L.J., (as he then was) stated (at p. 79) that "suitable" in relation to "goggles" must mean "well-......