Michael Roger Barry Unwin (Plaintiff) Stanton & Staveley Ltd (Defendants)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE WILLMER,LORD JUSTICE RUSSELL,LORD JUSTICE FENTON ATKINSON |
| Judgment Date | 15 October 1968 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1968] EWCA Civ J1015-6 |
| Date | 15 October 1968 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 1966. U. No. 1671 |
[1968] EWCA Civ J1015-6
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Civil Division
Appeal from Stable J. Derby Assizes 7.2. 1968.
Revised
Lord Justice Willmer
Lord Justice Russell and
Lord Justice Fenton Atkinson
Mr H. TUDOR EVANS, Q.C., and Mr BRIAN J. APPLEBY (Instructed by Messrs Coombs & Co., Agents for Messrs Hodgson, Fox & Co., Nottingham) appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Defendants).
Mr L. STUART SHIELDS (Instructed by Messrs W.H. Thompson) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Plaintiff).
This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr Justice Stable given at Derby Assizes on the 7th February 1968 whereby he pronounced in favour of the plaintiff in an action for damages for personal Injuries brought by him against his employers arising out of an accident which he had sustained at work.
The plaintiff was employed, and had been employed for some three years, by the defendants as a fettler. The accident happened on the 5th January 1966 when the plaintiff, in circumstances which I will shortly relate, was struck in the eye by a particle of metal coming from another fettler, who was working not very far away. The plaintiff suffered a substantial injury to his eye, In respect of which the learned judge awarded him general damages of £500, plus special damage amounting to £59. 6s, 3d. So far as the quantum ofthe damages is concerned, no question arises on tins appeal, the defendants, however, have appealed to this court on the question of liability.
The process of fettling at the defendants' works was carried on in an open-sided shed, which is Illustrated in the photograph that has been placed before us. On the material date there was one fettler, a man called Chapter, who was working in the shed. The plaintiff himself on that day was not engaged in fettling, but was employed in grinding some objects which are described as weights, and which are visible in the photograph to which I have referred. He was actually working out of doors in front of the shed alongside a roadway which passes along the front of the shed. The plaintiff had temporarily knocked off work in order to go to the lavatory, for which purpose he proceeded along the road shown in the photograph. He was actually on his way back to his place of work when the accident happened. The plaintiff was equipped by the defendants with goggles to protect his eyes, and there Is, of course, a statutor duty to wear goggles when engaged on fettling work. At the time of the accident the plaintiff was not wearing his goggles; he had, I assume, taken them off when he went to the lavatory, and had not put them on again at the tints when the accident happened; they were said to be hanging round his neck.
Prior to the accident it appears that the defendants had constructed certain shields for use in connection with the fettling work in an attempt to catch the metal fragments which tended to fly off in almost any direction. But it appears that the shields which they had devised were not wholly satisfactory, and at the time of the accident, and for some time before that, the shields were not in use. Since the accident, we are told, an Improved form of shield had been devised, and is in use; but I gather from the evidence that even these Improved shields do not afford 100 per cent protection against flying particles.
The learned Judge delivered a very short judgment, in which he found that the defendants were at fault for falling to take reasonable care for the safety of the plaintiff. He considered, andrejected, a contention that the plaintiff on his part was guilty of contributory negligence. When I first read the Judgment, and again when it was read to us in court, I was under the impression that the learned judge was disposed to find the defendants negligent because they well knew that neither the plaintiff nor anyone else was in the habit of wearing goggles when passing up and down this road to which I have referred, and which is well within range of flying particles from the fettling process. I was under the impression. that the judge was saying that the defendants had a duty in those circumstances to warn the plaintiff and others by appropriate instructions to wear their goggles when passing up and...
To continue reading
Request your trial