Stanbrook v Waterlow & Sons Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE DANCKWERTS,LORD JUSTICE DIPLOCK |
| Judgment Date | 15 April 1964 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1964] EWCA Civ J0415-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 15 April 1964 |
[1964] EWCA Civ J0415-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
From Mr. Justice McNair
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Dennig)
Lord Justice Danckwerts
and
Lord Justice Diplock
MR. CHARLES DOUGHTY, Q. C., and MR. E. F. MQNIER-WILLIAMS (instructed by Messrs. Shaen Roscoe & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Plaintiff).
MR. MARTIN JUKES, Q. C., and MR. G. B. H. CURRIE (instructed by Messrs. Stunt & Son) appeared on behalf of the Respondents (Defendants).
This case raises an important point for the printing industry. Mr. Stanbrook was employed by Messrs. Waterlow. He was working on a Heidleberg cylinder printing machine. He had his fingers nipped between the cylinder and a metal part. He claims from his employers damages for negligence or for breach of statutory duty.
The machine is shown in the photographs. It is well fenced and guarded when it is running in the ordinary course of printing paper. But this accident happened when the guard over the cylinder was removed. It was not removed for repair or oiling, or anything of that kind. It was removed so as to enable Mr. Stanbrook to prepare the machine for the next batch of printing. He had to put pieces, of paper round this cylinder, and smooth them down with his hand so that it was all even. But he could only smooth down a little at a time. So, after smoothing one part, he had to move, the cylinder round in order to get at the next part. But the cylinder could not be moved by hand. It could only be operated by the electric motor, which controlled the printing run. There was a starting lever for this motor. When the lever was pushed to start the motor, the cylinder revolved and reached a great pace in a very short time. So much so that within 4 or 5 seconds, the cylinder reached 2, 500 revolutions an hour, that is, 40 revolutions a minute. Now Mr. Stanbrook only wanted the cylinder to go round a very small distance, only an inch or two. So he had to push the lever on, and then off again, very quickly. An expert operater can push it "on-and-off" so quickly that the cylinder may only revolve a quarter of an inch before it Is stopped. But if he is not very quick, and delays even a fraction more of a second, the cylinder will revolve much further, several inches indeed.
Now on this occasion Mr. Stanbrook was smoothing the paper with his left hand. He wanted to move the cylinder round a little. So he pushed the starting lever "oh-and-off". But he was a little slower than usual. Instead of the cylinder going an inch or two, it went six or seven inches. At the same time he had the fingers of his left hand on the paper pointing downwards, and over his left hand was a piece of manilla paper which had to come over at the end. Because of the extra movement of the cylinder, his fingers were dravninto the "nip" of the machine. He managed to put his foot on a foot-stop and shut off all the power. But nevertheless he had a nasty injury.
I do not think he can make out a claim for negligence at common law. The experience of Waterlows, and of other people who work these machines, is that there have been very few accidents. There are thousands of these machines. Only one accident was brought to the notice of the Court, And that was for a different cause altogether, a fault in the braking system. I agree with the Judge that the claim at common law was not made out.
So far as the Factories Act is concerned, it is an entirely different matter. Section 14 requires every dangerous part of the machinery to be securely fenced. This nip was admittedly a dangerous part of the machinery. Then Section 16 says: "All fencing or other safeguards provided in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall be of substantial construction, and constantly maintained and kept in position while the parts required bo be fenced or safeguarded are in motion or use, except when any such parts are necessarily exposed for examination and for any lubrication or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v W. S. Westin Ltd
...will of course, as he says, explain the decision in Knight's case. 19 Mr. O'Connor also relied on the decision of this Court in Stanbrook v. Waterlow & Sons Ltd. reported in 1964 1 Weekly Law Reports at page 825. This was again a case of a printing machine where an operator's fingers had be......