Hall v Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 07 November 1962 |
| Date | 07 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 44. |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - Second Division) |
2ND DIVISION.
Lord Walker.
NegligenceMaster and servantBreach of statutory dutyFactories ActAll floors to be kept free from any substance likely to cause persons to slipFactories Act, 1961 (9 and 10 Eliz. II, cap. 34), sec. 28 (1).
ReparationPersonal injuriesAction founded on negligence at common law and on breach of statuteWhether statutory provisions appliedFactories Act, 1961 (9 and 10 Eliz. II, cap. 34), sec. 28 (1).
The Factories Act, 1961, sec. 28, enacts:"(1) All floors, steps, stairs, passages, and gangways shall be of sound construction and properly maintained and shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, be kept free from any obstruction and from any substance likely to cause persons to slip."
A workman who had been injured through putting his foot on a piece of metal rod whereby he slipped and fell, sustaining injuries, brought an action of damages against his employers, founded on negligence at common law and on a breach of section 4 of the Factories Act, 1959 (now sec. 28 (1) of the Factories Act, 1961). The Lord Ordinary rejected the pursuer's case so far as founded on common law negligence, but held that there had been a breach of the statute.
Held that sec. 28 (1) of the Factories Act, 1961, applied and that the existence of the danger was causally connected with the accident.
Peter Scott Hall brought an action against Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering Company, Limited, his employers, for damages on account of personal injuries sustained by him in the course of his employment. The action was founded both on negligence at common law and on a breach of section 4 of the Factories Act, 1959 (now section 28 (1) of the Factories Act, 1961).1
After sundry procedure a proof was allowed and was taken by Lord Walker who held that the pursuer had failed to establish liability at common law, but that the defenders were in breach of their statutory duty and that that breach was a material cause of the accident.
The facts appear sufficiently from the Lord Ordinary's opinion.
At advising on 7th November 1962,
LORD JUSTICE-CLERK (Grant).The pursuer in this action claims damages in respect of an accident which he sustained in the defenders' boiler shop on 15th February 1960. Just before his shift ended at 5.30 on that day the pursuer was walking along a passageway in the boiler shop when he trod on a piece of metal rod, slipped and fell. As a result he sustained certain injuries. At the time of the accident the pursuer was walking towards the main road through the boiler shop which the said passageway crossed at right angles. He was a few feet from this junction when the accident happened. At the point where the pursuer fell there was immediately on his left a guillotine machine and on his right on the other side of the passageway and a short distance away were some fitters' benches.
The pursuer's case was originally founded (a) on negligence at common law and (b) on breach by the defenders of what is now section 28 (1) of the Factories Act, 1961. The Lord Ordinary rejected the pursuer's case so far as based on common law and the pursuer accepts his decision on that branch of the case. On breach of statutory duty, however, the Lord Ordinary found in favour of the pursuer, but held that he was ten per centum to blame for the accident. This apportionment was not challenged before us. I should add that the defenders contended before the Lord Ordinary that the pursuer at the time of the accident was not going, as he said, to a store in the course of his employment, but was for his own purposes, making his way to a point from which he could make a rapid exit when his shift ended a few minutes later. The Lord Ordinary rejected this contention, and his decision on this was not challenged by the defenders before us. The sole question, accordingly, is as to the alleged breach of the provisions now incorporated in section 28 (1). Section 28 (1) is in the following...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering Company Ltd
...reasonably practicable to keep the floor free or on the defenders to prove that it was not. (In the Court of Session, 7th November 1962—1962 S.C. 434.) Peter Scott Hall brought an action against Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering Company, Limited, his employers, for damages on account o......
-
Gibson (A.P.) v British Insulated Callender's Construction Company Ltd
...a passage clear was reasonably practicable. It does not appear to have been argued or suggested at any stage in the Court of Session ( 1962 S.C. 434) that there was any onus on the defenders. It was there held that the method averred by the pursuer was reasonably practicable and would have ......