R E. Glanville & Sons (Bovey Tracey) Ltd v Rutherford (pet dis)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 10 February 1958 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1958] EWCA Civ J0210-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 10 February 1958 |
[1958] EWCA Civ J0210-3
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Gtoddard)
Lord Justice Morris and
Mr. Justice McNair
MR JOHN THOMPSON Q.C., and MR. E.H. LAUGHTON-SCOTT (Instructed by Messrs. Arnold Carter & Co., Agents for Messrs. Hamlyn Taylor & Neck, Paignton) appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
MR M. BERRYMAN. Q.C., and MR DAVID CROOM-JOHNSON (Instructed by Messrs. Pullan Davies & Co., Leeds) appeared as Counsel for the Respondents.
: This is an appeal from a Judgment of Justice Stratified at Exeter Assizes in an action brought to recover damages for personal injuries which certainly arose in rather a remarkable manner. The Defendants have a small engineering works at Bovsy Tracoy and employ a few men. Among the machines which they have in the works is a machine which is celled an abrasive wheel cut-off machine which consists of an abrasive carborundum wheel which is driven at & very high speed about 4,000 revolutions a minute. That machine, which is controlled by a switch and a handle, has a guard upon it. The guard is there for one main purpose I think and it may be for what Is called a subsidiary purpose because this machine in the way It is worked is exactly like a circular saw except that the cutting is done by the carborundum wheel and not by a saw. As everybody knows, human ingenuity has never yet found a satisfactory or complete guard for a circular saw; that is why people fingers are frequently cut off. Very good photographs have been given to us of the machine, two of which show a man actually at work upon it and one can see at once that a slip of his hand on the material upon which he was working might bring his hand in contact with the lower pert of the carborundum wheel, although no doubt the top part of the machine is protected.
It seems to be common knowledge that these carborundum wheels are very apt to disintegrate: they break from time to time because of the high speed at which they are working. If they break there la a great danger if the parts of the wheel fly about the shop that people may get serious injury, and so this guard which is in the shape of a hood goes over the machine and that will or should protect the workman if the wheel disintegrates in the course of the working of the machine.
The Plaintiff on the day in question was working this machine and the carborundum wheel did disintegrate; there Is no doubt about that. It had been put in two days before end as the learned Judge found, having seen the witnesses who gave evidence on this point. It had been put in by the foreman and had been put in carefully and properly. We know what did happen but I still find great difficulty In understanding exactly why it happened. When this wheel disintegrated, in some way or other the guard lifted and turned towards the Plaintiff In some way and cut his wrist. It was a most unhappy and unfortunate accident because the out was a very small one and ordinarily speaking it would not have hurt anybody and Just a hand kerchief tied round would have been all right in the ordinary way, but unfortunately it severed the particular nerve in the wrist which controls the grip of the hand and so forth and this, one might say, comparatively trivial accident caused a serious injury to the Plaintiff.
What I have found great difficulty in understanding and still have difficulty in understanding is why this guard behaved in the way that It did and how it came up. I am bound to say for myself I should have thought that it was because the nuts were loose; the two nuts which hold the guard in position I should have thought must have been loose end that would account for the guard rising when tills disintegration took place. Of course when the disintegration of the wheel takes piece the pieces all fly inside this hood and no doubt strike up with great force, and an expert who was called on behalf of the Plaintiff put It that what he called the explosion of the wheel (because It is tant amount to an explosion) when it disintegrates in the way I have endeavoured to describe, would hit the top of the hood and lift it. It is not necessary for us to come to and definite decision as to how it was that the thing lifted in the way it did lift, save for this, that it was a direct consequence of this disintegration of the carborundum wheal.
We have not been asked to decide this case on the basis of the common law liability of the defendants. The learned Judge rejected the common lat liability and I am going to assume for the purpose of my Judgment today that his Judgment was right. We have not been asked to reverse it on that ground but we have been asked to reverse his finding on the liability which is alleged to exist here by reason of breach of sections 14 and 16 of the Factories Act. I need not reed those very well known sections again. Section 14 provides that all dangerous parts of machinery must be fenced when they are working and section 16 provides for the proper maintenance of the fanons which under section 14 must be provided.
Why did this machine have to be fenced? ft had to be fenced because there is a risk of the carborundum wheel, which it protects, disintegrating and thereby causing injury. The wheel did disintegrate and there can be no doubt whatever that the disintegration by some means or other caused this guard to shift and to cut the Plaintiff's wrist.
Now It is said following on the decisions of the House of Lords, which I need not go through at any length because they are very well known decisions, that the object of the Factories Act is not to prevent things flying out; it is to prevent the contact of the human body with the dangerous part of the machine. From that it is argued that unless the human body comes into contact with the dangerous part of the machine, no liability is incurred under the provisions of the Factories Act. But there has never been a case on all fours with this case; this case I think is an entirely different case and it seems to me that if one states the plain facts of the case It would be a very curious and narrow reading if one could say here no liability was incurred under the Factories Act. The Factories Act requires the dangerous part of the machine, which is the carborundurs wheel, to be fenced and the reason why this carborundum wheel is dangerous (or perhaps I should say one of the reasons because of course It la dangerous from the point of view of the cutter) Is because of the risk of disintegration and, therefore, a guard is provided to guard against the risk of disintegration because if there is disintegration personal injury will probably result. There was disintegration and personal injury did result and It resulted because the disintegration affected the guard in some way. It was the guard which actually caused the injury but it only caused the injury because the disintegration of the wheel caused it to shift. I cannot myself see that it would be otherwise than a very unfortunate and remarkable result that if the wheel disintegrated with such force that it caused a fracture in the guard and a piece of the carborundum wheel struck the Plaintiff, he would be able to recover, whereas If it did not cause a fracture but the force of the disintegration bent or turned tries guard onto the Plaintiff's hand, then he could not recover. Again it would be a remarkable result that if the explosion fractured the guard and a piece...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Close v Steel Company of Wales Ltd
...of a machine come before this Court again, Lord Chief Justice Goddard presiding, in Rutherford v. Glanville Sons (Jersey) Ltd., 1958 1 weekly Law Reports, 415. It is true, as Mr. Justice inn observed, that the decision may be said primarily to have rested upon the view that, the necessity ......
-
Close v Steel Company of Wales Ltd
...were not "dangerous parts" of the machine. Or take the cut-off machine which the Court of Appeal had before them in Rutherford v. R. E. Glanville & Sons (Bovey Tracey) Ltd. [1948] 1 W.L.R. 415. It contained an abrasive carborundum wheel which was driven at 4,000 revolutions per minute. It w......
-
Eaves v Morris Motors Ltd
...view was taken by this court in Newnham v. Taggart Morgan & Coles (unreported, 19th July, 1956) and ( Rutherford v. Glanville 1958 1 All England Reports, 532). 16 In ( Bullock v. Power 1956 1 All England Reports, 498) this court decided that a plaintiff could not recover in respect of injur......