Jayes v I.M.I. (Kynoch) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE ROBERT GOFF,LORD JUSTICE OLIVER |
| Judgment Date | 17 October 1984 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1984] EWCA Civ J1017-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 84/0915 |
| Date | 17 October 1984 |
[1984] EWCA Civ J1017-1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT REGISTRY
(MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON)
Royal Courts of Justice.
The Master of the Rolls (Sir John Donaldson)
Lord Justice Oliver
and
Lord Justice Robert Goff
84/0915
1981 J. No. 10748
MR. K. MAY (instructed by Messrs. Robin Thompson & Partners) appeared on behalf of the (Plaintiff) Appellant.
MR. GRAEME WILLIAMS, Q.C. and MR. JOHN WILLIAMS (instructed by V.O. White, Esq.) appeared on behalf of the (Defendants) Respondents.
I will ask Lord Justice Robert Goff to deliver the first judgment.
There is before the court an appeal by David John Jayes against a judgment by Mr. Justice MacPherson in which he dismissed an action in which the appellant claimed damages for injuries suffered to his finger in the course of his work at the respondents' factory. The respondents are a company called I.M.I. (Kynoch) Limited, and the appellant was a production supervisor working at the respondents' factory, and indeed a very experienced man.
During the course of his work, a machine, which was within the appellant's responsibility (a power press used in the manufacture of brass cartridge cases), experienced some trouble which had to be put right. So he called in some fitters to come and deal with that particular problem, and two men came. Whether they were certificated or not, they were obviously very experienced fitters whom the appellant knew well. They came to deal with the problem, which was a problem of lubrication; and the guard was removed from the working part of the machine which, in particular, covered a moving belt on the machine.
The fitters got to work. They tried to remedy the problem, but they were not sure whether they had succeeded or not. So from time to time they had to start the machine up and turn it over. The appellant was present, and when the machine was started up he pointed out to the two fitters that grease was getting on to the belt. That was something which he regarded, no doubt rightly, as unsatisfactory. So what he did was this. He got hold of a wiper to wipe the grease from the pulley to stop the grease from getting on to the belt. He tried to do that. Then the machine stopped, and the fitters had another go at solving the problem. The machine was started up again and, once again, the appellant got hold of a piece of rag. He put it where the grease seemed to be spreading from the pulley on to the belt. At that moment the piece of rag became caught up in the machine. Then, instead of his letting it go, he tried to pull it out. Instead of his succeeding in pulling the rag out of the machine, the machine pulled his finger in, and he suffered damage to the index finger of his right hand. That was the subject matter of his claim.
The case came before Mr. Justice MacPherson. It is obvious from the transcript that the appellant was a man who was completely frank, and he described clearly what he did. He obviously knew that what he had done was a very foolish thing to do; and in the end, in the evidence, that was indeed put to him by counsel. We find, at the end of the cross-examination, Mr. Williams saying to the appellant: "Would you agree with me what you did was a crazy thing to do, Mr. Jayes?" The answer was: "Yes, a very foolish thing to do." So he was absolutely frank that what he had done was a crazy thing to have done in the circumstances.
His claim was brought for breach of statutory duty under the Factories Act. He claimed that there was a breach of section 14, in that a dangerous part of the machine had not been fenced as it ought to have been. Furthermore, he submitted that the respondents could not rely on the provisions of section 16 of the Factories Act 1961 because this was not a case where, although work was being done on the machine, it could be said that the parts in question were necessarily exposed for examination at the time when he suffered his injury. In the alternative, the case advanced on his behalf was that, even if the part was necessarily exposed, nevertheless, having regard...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
...society, rather than Mr Lynch, looked to the Commissioner to take reasonable steps to prevent. 46This approach is not affected by Jayes v IMI (Kynoch) Ltd [1985] ICR 155, which was strongly relied on by the Commissioner. There the appellant's contention was that it was impossible as a matt......
-
Prestige Properties Ltd v Scottish Provident Institution
...the reduction of the claimant's entitlement (depending on what is just and equitable) may be anything from nil to total: consider Jayes v. IMI (Kynock) Ltd [1985] ICR 155; c) in the case of the defence of contributory negligence the focus goes beyond causation and extends to the respective ......
-
Anderson v Newham College of Further Education
...I will come later in this judgment) to the point of finding 100 per cent contributory negligence, is the decision of this court in Jayes v IMI (Kynoch) Ltd [1985] ICR 155. The headnote of that decision reads: "The plaintiff, a most experienced supervisor at the defendants' factory, called i......
-
Ronald Pate V. Stewart Homes Limited
...rarely be more than 50%. [78] In McEwan v Lothian Buses Ltd, Lord Emslie considered competing English authorities (Jayes v IMI (Kynoch) [1985] ICR 155 and Anderson v Newham College of Further Education [2003] ICR 212) on the question whether it is open to the court to make a finding of 100%......