Millard v Serck Tubes Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLORD JUSTICE DANCKWERTS,LORD JUSTICE SALMON,LORD JUSTICE FENTON ATKINSON
Judgment Date15 November 1968
Judgment citation (vLex)[1968] EWCA Civ J1115-1
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Date15 November 1968
Docket Number1966 M. No. 3795

[1968] EWCA Civ J1115-1

In The Supreme Court of Judicature

Court of Appeal

On Appeal From the High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division

Revised

Before:

Lord Justice Danckwerts

Lord Justice Salmon, and

Lord Justice Fenton Atkinson

1966 M. No. 3795
Bernard Millard
Plaintiff (Appellant)
and
Serck Tubes Limited
Defendants (Respondents)

Mr. PEPER WEITZMAE (instructed by Messrs. W.H. Thompson, Solicitors, London) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff (Appellant).

Mr. TASKER WATKINS V.C,. Q. C, and Mr. RICHARD TUCKER (instructed by Messrs. Caporn, Campbell, Clare & Clare, agents for T.H. Ekins & Son, Birmingham) appeared on behalf of the Defendants (Respondents).

LORD JUSTICE DANCKWERTS
1

This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Faulks, dated 15th March, 1968. It relates to the case of a man who suffered severe injuries owing to his hand being dragged into a drilling machine; this occurred on the 18th January, 1966.

2

As I say, he was severely injured. His arm was broken and he suffered other injuries. The machine was a drilling machine which drilled billets, there being two drills working in opposite directions, one approaching the other, drilling a hole through the length of the billet. The lefthand drill is retracted slightly before the righthand one, the object of that being that the drills do not meet inside the billet, and then the righthand drill continues the process to its completion. In the present case a hole had already been drilled in the billet but it was desired to enlarge it.

3

The accident happened in a very peculiar way. There was some swarf, which is material that is forced out in the course of drilling; as the photographs show it was like wire in the billets. What happened was that the Plaintiff's hand cot caught in the swarf as he was about to put, in another billet and, the machine still being on the move, his hand was dragged in and was caught between the drills with the disastrous results that I have mentioned.

4

There was a fence, which was intended to comply with Section 14 of the Factories Act, 1961; but unfortunately the fence was not complete enough though it moved back and forth with the machine because there was obviously a gap through which the Plaintiff's hand was able to be drawn. It seems clear therefore that there was a breach of Section 14 of the Factories Act because the machinewas not effectively fenced; and, in spite of the argument which has been addressed to us I think that this part of the machine was a dangerous part and therefore required to he fenced.

5

Mr. Justice Faulks decided against the Plaintiff, though he agreed that there had been a breach of the statutory provision, and he dismissed the action.

6

We have been referred to a certain number of cases which nave not been held to be within the terms of the section. It has been impressed upon us by Mr. Watkins that this was a very unexpected and extraordinary kind of accident, but it seems to me that there was a breach of the statute and the fact that the accident occurred in a particular way does not affect the liability which falls upon the Defendants. It is quite true to say that it was not readily foreseeable that an accident due to being caught by swarf in this way would be likely to occur; but in my view there was a breach of the statute; the accident occurred in a way that was caused by the Defendants' failure to have the machine effectively fenced, because if the fence had been effective the accident would net have happened.

7

In those circumstances therefore I would reverse the judgment of the learned Judge; I would allow the appeal and hold the Defendants liable.

LORD JUSTICE SALMON
8

I agree; I add a word only because we are differing from the conclusion of the learned Judge.

9

The Defendants in this case had to concede that the drills of the machines in question wore a dangerous part of that machinery and that these dangerous parts were not properly fenced, and that accordingly they were in breach of their duty under Section 14 of the Factories Act, 1961. They were placed in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Johnson v F E Callow (Engineers;) Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 21 October 1970
    ...the trial judge on the basis of the decisions in Allen v. Aeroplane and Motor Aluminium Castings Ltd. [1965] 1 W.L.R. 1244 and in Millard v. Serck Tubes Ltd. [1969] 1 W.L.R. 211. The reasoning of these two cases appears to be that once it is established by the plaintiff in the balance for ......
  • McGovern v British Steel Corporation
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 21 March 1986
    ...is not liable." 20 Mr. Williams supported the assertion that the "but for" test is sufficient by reference to cases such as Millard v. Serck Tubes Ltd. [1969] 1 W.L.R. 211 in which the plaintiff suffered injury when his hand was drawn through a gap in the fence on a drilling machine by a p......
  • Pitters v Haughton
    • Jamaica
    • Supreme Court (Jamaica)
    • 10 February 1978
    ...received in an entirely unexpected way, for even if it were, the defendant would still be liable. ( Millard v. Serck Tubes Limited [1969] 1 All E.R. 598) 14 If hereafter, I am found to have fallen into error, in this conclusion, and it is held that the plaintiff was required to show that th......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT