Ward v Coltness Iron Company
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 25 May 1944 |
| Date | 25 May 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 24. |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - First Division) |
1ST DIVISION.
NegligenceBreach of statutory dutyFactoryFactory in course of constructionWhether a "factory"Liability of occupiers in relation to employee of constructional engineersFactories Act, 1937 (1 Edw. VIII and 1 Geo. VI, cap. 67), secs. 24 (7), 107, 149 and 151 (1).
The Factories Act, 1937, enacts by sec. 24 (7) that, "if any person is employed or working on or near the wheel-track of an overhead travelling crane in any place where he would be liable to be struck by the crane," effective measures shall be taken to ensure that the crane does not approach within twenty feet of that place. Sec. 107 applies many provisions of the Act to "building operations," but these provisions do not include the provisions of sec. 24 (7). By sec. 149 the general application of the Act is confined to factories, a "factory" being defined by sec. 151 (1) as meaning "premises in which persons are employed in manual labour in any process for or incidental to "the making, altering, or adapting for sale of "any article."
A workman, whose employers were subcontractors under a contract to construct a factory, was injured while engaged in the work of construction by an overhead travelling crane belonging to the owners and occupiers of the premises. In an action of damages against the owners and occupiers, which was laid both on common law negligence and on breach of sec. 24 (7), he averred that the work of construction "had almost been completed and that the factory was in operation, its furnace being kindled and its travelling crane in running order and manned by the defenders' servant under the orders of the defenders' engineer." He further averred that the premises were a factory within the meaning of the Act, and that the crane was not being operated on behalf of his own employers but was "giving a lift to servants of the defenders."
Held that the pursuer had stated a relevant case under the Act, in respect (1) that his averments were sufficient to bring the building within the definition of "factory," setting forth, as they did, activities incidental to the operation of manufacture, and (2) that the facts that the pursuer was not an employee of the factory and was not engaged in the work of the factory were immaterial, any person legitimately present in a factory being entitled to invoke the safeguards of the Act.
John Ward brought an action in the Sheriff Court at Glasgow against the Coltness Iron Company, Limited, for damages for personal injuries. The action was laid both on common law negligence and on breach of statutory duty.
The pursuer averred, inter alia, (Cond. 2) "On or about 23rd April 1942, while the claimant in the employment of Sir William Arrol & Co., Limited, was engaged at constructional work in the premises of the defenders, the Coltness Iron Co., Limited, at their works in Newmains, his left hand was run over by an overhead electric crane, whereby he sustained loss, injury and damage as aftermentioned. The defenders' said premises included an engineering shop in which were a number of bays, each of which contained one or more overhead travelling cranes. The work on which the pursuer was engaged was the erection of a platform between girders supporting the rails on which cranes travelled. This work was carried out high above the level of the floor of the shop and necessitated the pursuer standing on a temporary staging. This staging was supported by the flanges of the girders and was on a level some two or three feet below the surface of the rails on which the cranes travelled and in close juxtaposition to them. The pursuer was standing on this staging, leaning forward and downward in order to catch with a tool an iron plate which was being hoisted to him. The tool was held in his right hand, and he supported himself by placing his left hand on the crane rail. While the pursuer was in that position. the crane was driven up from behind and ran over his hand, Shortly prior to the pursuer going on the staging, the driver of the said crane had been warned verbally by the foreman of the pursuer's squad that men were about to work in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v A.I. Industrial Products Plc
...Ltd. (1950) 2 All E.R. 719, in which he said at 721: 24 "As to the word 'process' in the first part of section 151(1), in Ward v. Coltness Iron Co. Ltd. (1944) S.C. 324 Lord Moncrieff, dealing with section 151(1) of this Act, said that he read the words 'in any process' as used in the secti......
-
Mcgregor Glazing Ltd (in Liq) V. George Mcgregor
...v Johnston 1985 SLT 533, Morrisons Associated Companies Limited v James Rome & Sons Limited 1964 SC 160 and Ward v Coltness Iron Company 1944 SC 318. Pursuers' submissions in reply [13] Counsel reminded me of the tests to be applied when scrutinising a party's averments to decide if they ar......
-
Ross Reilly Against Lee Brodie
...A.C. 218; Lord Advocate v Johnston 1985 SLT 533; Morrison’sAssociatedCo’s Ltd v James Rome & Sons Ltd 1964 SC 160; Ward v Coltness Iron Co 1944 SC 318. With regard to the argument directed at what Ms Grant called the pursuer’s contradictory averments she drew my attention to apparent contra......
- Joyce v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd