Hindle v Birtwistle
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1897 |
| Year | 1897 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
-
- 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
29 cases
-
Dorothy Henry v Superior Plastics Ltd
...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 the ordinary course of hum......
-
Austin Rover Group Ltd v HM Inspector of Factories
...human being may be reasonably expected to act in circumstances which may be reasonably expected to occur: see Hindle v. Birtwistle [1897] 1 Q.B. 192, 195-196, per Wills J.; John Summers & Sons Ltd. v. Frost [1955] A.C. 740, 765-766, per Lord Reid; Close v. Steel Co. of Wales Ltd. [1962] A.......
-
John Summers & Sons Ltd v Frost
...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 was dangerous" 16 I ......
-
Close v Steel Company of Wales Ltd
...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 that it was capab......
Request a trial to view additional results