Dunbar v Ardee Guardians

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 25 June 1896
• Date: 25 June 1896
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Dunbar

and

The Guardians of The Poor of the Ardee Union (1).

Appeal.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER DIVISIONS

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND BY

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL,

AND BY

THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.

1897.

Negligence — Poor Law Guardians — Liability for negligence of official. — Fever patient in workhouse hospital — Death accelerated by want of proper care — Lord Campbell's Act.

Guardians of the poor are not answerable in damages in their corporate capacity for injuries caused by the negligence of their officials in the treatment of poor patients received into workhouse hospitals.

The plaintiff sued the Guardians of Ardee Union, under Lord Campbell's Act, for damages in respect of the negligence of the officials of the guardians by which the death of her son, a patient in the workhouse hospital, was accelerated, if not caused:—

Held, affirming the decision of the Exchequer Division, that the action did not lie against the guardians for the negligence of their officials.

Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the Exchequer Division, refusing to change the verdict entered in the action for the defendants into a verdict for the plaintiff. The action was brought, under Lord Campbell's Act, by Rose Dunbar against the Guardians of the Poor of Ardee Union, claiming damages for the death of her son, Patrick Dunbar, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the guardians, and their servants.

By her statement of claim, the plaintiff alleged:—

1. “That the defendants are the Guardians of the Poor of Ardee Union.

2. “That the plaintiff is the mother, and one of the next of kin of Patrick Dunbar, deceased, and no administration has ever been taken out to his estate.

3. “That the defendants, as such guardians, had undertaken the duty of the care and management of an hospital for patients suffering from fever, which hospital was attached to the workhouse of the said Union.

4. “That it was the duty of the defendants, as such guardians, to provide for the maintenance and treatment in said hospital, of poor persons requiring medical and surgical aid, who were chargeable on the rates of said Union.

5. “That the said Patrick Dunbar, being a poor person, and chargeable on the rates of the said Union, and then suffering from fever, was, in his lifetime, received as a patient into the said hospital, and thereupon it was the duty of the defendants to provide for his proper maintenance and treatment; but the defendants did not provide proper maintenance and treatment for the said Patrick Dunbar, but, on the contrary, with gross negligence, and wilfully, and in breach of the said duty, omitted to treat the said Patrick Dunbar properly, and allowed him to remain improperly attended to; and, after express notice had been given to the defendants and their servants of the condition of the said Patrick Dunbar, the said Patrick Dunbar, through the said gross negligence, jumped out of a window, and, while almost naked, and in a state of delirium, remained exposed to the cold for a considerable time, the result whereof was that he died within twelve months of the institution of this action.

6. “That, on the admission of the said Patrick Dunbar to said hospital, the medical officer examined him, and gave orders to the master of the workhouse, the servant of the defendants, to provide an additional attendant, in addition to the ordinary staff of the said hospital, to take special care of the said Patrick Dunbar. Thereupon it was the duty of the defendants to provide a fit and proper extra attendant; notwithstanding said order, in breach of said duty, with wilful negligence, and in gross disregard of their duty, the defendants did not provide such attendant, and though their attention was repeatedly called to the condition of delirium in which the said Patrick Dunbar was, they persistently refused to get such attendant, the result whereof was, that the said Patrick Dunbar suffered the injuries mentioned in paragraph 5 herein, and died within twelve months of the commencement of this action.

7. “That it was the duty of the defendants, as such guardians as aforesaid, to provide proper attendants and nurses in the said hospital; notwithstanding such duty, and in breach thereof, the said defendants wilfully and negligently neglected, and refused to appoint proper attendants and nurses, but knowingly appointed persons who were totally unfit for such a position, and, after knowledge of such unfitness being brought to their notice, the said defendants neglected to take measures to have proper attendants appointed, but wilfully and negligently allowed attendants and nurses who were totally unfit for their duties to continue on in the discharge of them, the result whereof was, that the said Patrick Dunbar received the injuries mentioned in the 5th paragraph herein, and died within twelve months of the institution of this action.

8. “That it was the duty of the defendants, in the carrying out of their ordinary duties, and of their duties in the management of said hospital, to take all proper precautions for the care of patients admitted thereto, and, in case any patient should escape, it was their duty to use all reasonable means to bring back said patient to the hospital. But the defendants did not use all, or any reasonable means to bring back said Patrick Dunbar, after his escape from the hospital, but, on the contrary, negligently, wilfully, and in breach of said duty, allowed the said Patrick Dunbar to remain exposed to the cold for a number of hours, almost naked, the result of which was, that the said Patrick Dunbar died within twelve months before the institution of this action.

9. “That it was the duty of the master of the workhouse, as such servant of the said defendants, when such notice was given to him of the condition of the said Patrick Dunbar, and that he had practically become insane, to send for the Medical Officer of the Union. But, notwithstanding that such notice was given, the said medical officer was not sent for, owing to the negligence and default of the defendants, the result thereof being that the said Patrick Dunbar remained without any or sufficient medical aid or remedies, and, consequently, became more delirious, and jumped out of the window of said hospital, and suffered the injuries in paragraph 5 herein mentioned, and died within twelve months of the commencement of this action.

10. “That the defendants undertook the care, and custody, and treatment of the said Patrick Dunbar, being then weak of mind and body, and suffering from fever, but the defendants did not take care of the said Patrick Dunbar, nor did they provide for his custody and treatment, but wilfully and negligently permitted him to leave their custody while almost naked and in delirium, to wander about the country, and exposed to the cold for a number of hours, and wilfully neglected to take any measures to bring the said Patrick Dunbar back into their said care and said custody, and under their treatment, but allowed him to remain in the open air almost naked, the result of which exposure was, that the said Patrick Dunbar died within twelve months of the commencement of this action.

“The plaintiff, as mother of the said Patrick Dunbar, and one of his next of kin, for the benefit of herself and the other next of kin, according to the form of the statute in such case provided, claims £1000.”

The defendants traversed the acts complained of in the statement of claim, denied that they acted negligently, wilfully, or in breach of duty, as alleged, denied that the notices mentioned in the 7th and 9th paragraphs of the statement of claim had been given to them; alleged that the injuries sustained by Patrick Dunbar were occasioned by his own negligence, and not by any neglect, default, or improper conduct on the part of the defendants; they also pleaded contributory negligence, and denied that the injuries sustained by the said Patrick Dunbar were caused by the alleged negligence, default, or improper conduct of the defendants.

The action was tried before Mr. Justice Gibson, and, by consent, without a jury. The facts proved before him are stated fully in the judgment of the Court of Appeal. At the conclusion of the evidence, the learned Judge held himself bound by the case of Brennan v. Limerick Guardians (1), to find for the defendants, but he reserved leave to the plaintiff to move to change the verdict, and he contingently assessed the damages at £100. Pursuant to the leave so reserved, the plaintiff applied to the Exchequer Division to change the verdict, but the Divisional Court also held themselves bound by Brennan v. Limerick Guardians (1), and refused to disturb the verdict. From that decision the present appeal was brought.

Meredith, Q.C., and Dickie, for the appellant:—

There was clearly negligence on the part of the defendants: the servants of the guardians had notice of the condition of the patient, and of his requiring additional attention, which they

failed to give; on this ground Brennan v. Limerick Guardians (1) is distinguishable. There is evidence that the defendants' negligence was the cause of Dunbar's death; it is proved that it diminished his chance of recovery; after the patient escaped from the hospital the defendants and their servants were bound to make reasonable provision for his safety: Foulkes v. Metropolitan District Railway Co. (2).

No doubt the observations of FitzGerald, J., at the end of his judgment in Brennan v. Limerick Guardians (1), are against our contention...