Winstanley v T. & J. Harrison Ltd (Defender.)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE DANCKWERTS,LORD JUSTICE DAVIES,LORD JUSTICE EDMUND DAVIES |
| Judgment Date | 25 June 1968 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1968] EWCA Civ J0625-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 25 June 1968 |
[1968] EWCA Civ J0625-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal from Court of Passage of the City of Liverpool
Lord Justice Danckwerts
Lord Justice Davies and
Lord Justice Edmund Davies
Mr. K. LAWTON (instructed by Messrs Osmond, Bard & Westbrook, Agents for Messrs Canter, Levin & Co., Liverpool) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Plaintiff).
Mr. M. MORLAND (instructed by Messrs Norton, Rose, Botterell & Roche, Agents for Messrs Weightman, Pedder & Co., Liverpool) appeared on behalf of the Respondents (Defendants
This is an appeal from the Court of Passage, the presiding Judge being Mr. Forrest, which was decided on the 15th January, 1968. The case concerns an accident suffered on the 24th October, 1966, by the Plaintiff, who was a deck-hand on a ship called the "Defender". The accident occurred when he was going down a gangway running parallel with the ship and running forward. The time was 6.15 p.m., when apparently it was dark at that time In October, and, stepping off the gangway, the Plaintiff had a fall. The reason for his fall was a piece of dunnage trapped under the roller at the bottom of the gangway. There was 5 to 6 feet sticking out in apparently the same direction as the gangway ran down, and the piece in question was 5 inches wide and 1 inch thick. The evidence of the Plaintiff was that he could not see it as he came down. He said that there was a light at the head of the gangway and on the shed, but not really sufficient to let him see the dunnage.
Then a witness called Catterall was accompanying him. He was behind him and he saw him step off the gangway and fall, and I think stopped him from falling into the dock, which might have had a very serious result. He saw the piece of dunnage. It was very dirty. The point of that was, I suppose, that it was not easy to see. Normally there would be a cluster of lights at the bottom of the gangway "Sometimes cluster at foot; sometimes not". Both of them I think had been up and down the gangway during the hours of daylight, but during the hours of daylight the situation would be, as I see it, very different. The Judge decided against the Plaintiff and dismissed the action.
The case was based on two regulations in the Dock Regulations 1934 Nos. 9 and 12, and also on common law negligence. The material part of 9 is in these terms. "If a ship is lying at a wharf or quay (a) for the purposeof loading or unloading or coaling, there shall he safe means of access (b) for the use of persons employed at such times as they have to pass from the ship to the shore or from the shore to the ship as follows". Then there are some details with which I think we are not particularly concerned. That is safe means of access.
Then 12: "When the processes are being carried on. (b) the means of access provided in pursuance of Regulations 9 and 10, and (c) all parts of the ship", and so on, "shall be efficiently lighted (b), due regard being had to the safety of the ship and cargo, of all persons employed and of the navigation of other vessels", and so on. The material parts are that it must be efficiently lighted for the safety of all persons employed.
It seems to me that we are entitled to deal with this matter notwithstanding the view taken on the facts by the learned Judge. In the first place it must be pointed out that no evidence was called on behalf of the Defendants. All the facts that I have stated are clearly before us, just as much as they were before the learned Judge. It seems to me that it is not simply a matter of fact but a matter of inference or conclusion, from the facts which were proved. In my view, there was not proper care for the safety of men like the Plaintiff who were concerned with the loading and unloading of the ship, and the light was not really efficient for the purposes of the safety of persons in the same way.
On those two grounds I am of opinion that...
To continue reading
Request your trial