Caulfield v Bell and Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1959 |
| Date | 01 January 1959 |
| Court | High Court |
Employer and workman - Personal injury - Negligence - Unsafe system of work - Onus of proof.
Practice - Statement of claim - Negligence - Particulars of negligence - Sufficiency of particulars.
Motion on Notice
Motion by the defendants, in an action for negligence, for further and better particulars of the negligence and special damage alleged in the statement of claim. The defendants did not pursue their application in respect of the special damage.
The action was brought on the 21st February, 1957, by Patrick Caulfield, a docker, against George Bell and Company, Limited, shipping insurers and ship-brokers; and the alleged negligence was pleaded in the statement of claim as follows:—
"On the 24th day of August, 1956, the plaintiff was employed by the defendants in discharging timber from the steamship 'Kya' at Alexandra Basin. North Wall, Dublin, when, owing to the negligence and breach of duty of the defendants, their servants or agents, a piece of timber which was then being lifted by crane from the said steamship to the quayside fell upon the plaintiff causing him personal injuries, loss and damage."
The particulars of negligence were given as follows:—
"(1) The defendants failed to provide and maintain a safe system of work for the plaintiff.
(2) The defendants failed to provide and maintain adequate protection from injury for the plaintiff and other workers.
(3) The defendants failed to provide to the plaintiff and his fellow-workers adequate and proper appliances and equipment to enable them to carry out their work in safety.
(4) The defendants failed to supervise or properly to supervise the unloading of the said ship.
(5) The defendants failed to ensure that the ropes for tying up the loads which were being hoisted from the holds of the said ship were suitable for and safe to use in the said work.
(6) The defendants their servants or agents provided unsuitable, unsafe and dangerous appliances and equipment to the plaintiff and required him to carry out the said work with same."
The defendants did not file a defence, but served the plaintiff's solicitors with notice requiring further and better particulars of the negligence and special damage alleged in the plaintiff's claim. Such notice, and the plaintiff's replies thereto (so far as material), read:—
"1 (a) The names of the defendants' servants or agents referred to in paragraph 2 of the statement of claim."
Reply:—"This information should be within the defendants' knowledge."
"1 (b): The alleged negligence of the aforesaid employees of the defendants respectively."
Reply:—"The negligence [alleged] against them is that alleged in the particulars of negligence in the said statement of claim."
"2. Detailed particulars so far as is relevant of what the proper system of work was, and in what respects it is alleged that it was not observed."
Reply:—"It is not for the plaintiff to show what the proper system of work was. The system was unsafe in that the plaintiff was required to work with unsafe and unsuitable appliances and equipment and that in the event of the goods being loaded and hoisted from the ship becoming loose in the course of being hoisted, no protection was available to the plaintiff and his fellow-workers whereby they could escape injury from material falling from the said load."
"3. Respecting the 'protection' referred to at para. 2 in the particulars of negligence contained in the statement of claim."
Reply:—"See answer to No. 2 above."
"4. Respecting (a) the appliances and (b) the equipment which it is alleged the defendants should have provided and failed to provide."
Reply:—"The defendants failed to provide the plaintiff and his fellow-workers with suitable ropes with which to tie the loads which were being prepared by them. The ropes provided were wet and damp from being left out in the rain. Complaint was made to the defendants' foreman concerning these ropes and their condition, but they were not supplied with proper ropes or equipment and were required to work with the unsuitable ropes."
"5. Of the respects in which the supervision provided was inadequate."
"6. Of the respects in which it is alleged that the ropes provided and referred to in the aforesaid particulars of negligence at para. 5 were not suitable or safe to use in the said work."
"7. Respecting (a) the appliances and (b) equipment which it is alleged were (1) unsuitable (2) unsafe or (3) dangerous and the respects in which they were either unsuitable unsafe or dangerous."
The reply to each of Nos. 5, 6 and 7 was:—"See answer to No. 4."
The defendants thereupon instituted this motion for an order that the plaintiff give further and better...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quinn Insurance Ltd (Under Administration) v Pricewaterhousecoopers (A Firm)
...stubbornly resistant to much greater elucidation than the observation made by Murnaghan J. in Caulfield v. Bell and Company Ltd. [1958] I.R. 326 at p. 333 that the matter was ‘essentially a matter of 2 The background facts to this case are set out in very clear judgments delivered in the H......
-
McSweeney v McCarthy
...the level of danger involved, its complexity and so on. As regards a safe system of work Murnaghan J. observed in Caulfield v Bell. [1958] I.R. (326 at 333): "The expression, “a safe system of work,”… has not, as far as I am aware, ever been precisely defined… The expression has to be consi......
-
Coleman Harvey v Depuy International Ltd
...has to meet at trial. The defendants referred to a number of cases beginning with the decision in Caulfield v. George Bell & Co. Limited [1958] I.R. 326 where the court had ruled that it was not sufficient simply to allege that there was an unsafe system of work, the plaintiff would have t......