Hindle v Birtwistle
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1897 |
| Year | 1897 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
21 cases
-
Eaves v Morris Motors Ltd
...is abated. Therefore he urged us to return to the broad commonsense view expressed by Mr. Justice Wills and Mr. Justice Wright in Hindle v. Birtwhistle. But Nicholls' case decided that material is a separate thing from the machine which controls it and that the section does not require mate......
-
Dorothy Henry v Superior Plastics Ltd
..."in the ordinary course of human affairs danger may be reasonably anticipated from the use of them without protection" (per Wills J in Hindle v Birtswistle [1897] 1 Q.B 192, 195 ). The full description of the test of Wills J is: Machinery or parts of machinery is and are dangerous if in th......
-
John Summers & Sons Ltd v Frost
...J., who tried the action. I refrain from elaborating the point, and pass from it with this quotation from the judgment of Wills, J. in Hindle Birtwistle [1897] 1 Q.B. 192 at p. 195: "No doubt it would be impossible to say that because an accident had happened once therefore the machinery wa......
-
Close v Steel Company of Wales Ltd
...the same words. 3The meaning of the words "dangerous part" first came up for discussion in 1896 in the leading case of Hindle and Another v. Birtwistle [1897] 1 Q B. 192. It concerned looms in a cotton factory. A shuttle flew out and struck and injured a weaver. The Divisional Court held t......
Request a trial to view additional results