Gallagher v Mogul of Ireland Ltd

Judgment Date30 July 1975
Date30 July 1975
Docket Number[1972 No. 564 P.]
CourtSupreme Court
Mogul of Ireland Ltd

Mining operations - Manager of mine to take steps necessary for keeping working place secure - Breach of duty - Whether liability of defendant absolute - Interpretation - Fault - Apportionment - Damages - Mines and Quarries Act, 1965 (No. 7), ss. 49, 137.

Section 49, sub-s. 1, of the Mines and Quarries Act, 1965, states that "it shall be the duty of every manager of every mine to take such steps by way of controlling movement of the strata in the mine and supporting the roof and sides of every road or working place as may be necessary for keeping the road or working place secure", and sub-s. 2 states that it shall be the duty of the manager to obtain all information relevant for determining the steps necessary to discharge efficiently the duty imposed on him by sub-section 1. Section 137 of the Act of 1965 provides that in any legal proceedings to recover damages based on a contravention of a provision of the Act of 1965 it shall be a defence "to prove that it was impracticable to avoid or prevent the contravention." The plaintiff, aged 23 years, was engaged in drilling operations as the defendants' employee in their mine when he was injured by a fall of rock from the roof of the tunnel where he was working. The plaintiff's right arm was fractured in several places but, when the bones united, his earning capacity was not affected. The plaintiff claimed damages from the defendants in the High Court and based his claim (a) upon a breach of the defendants' duty pursuant to s. 49 of the Act of 1965, and (b) upon the negligence of the defendants and their agents. At the trial of the action before a judge and jury, the trial judge directed that, as a breach of s. 49 had been proved, the defendants were liable absolutely for that breach as they had not attempted to found their defence on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Thompson v Dublin Bus
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 5 Marzo 2015
    ...v Post Office [2000] ICR 1013 It was emphasised by Dublin Bus that, having regard to the reasoning in Gallagher v Mogul of Ireland Ltd [1975] 1 IR 204, it was clear that it was necessary to show that preventative measures could have been taken which were not. They submitted that on the fact......
  • Finlay v Murtagh
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 Enero 1979
    ...16 Donoghue v. StevensonELR [1932] A.C. 562. 17 McNamara v. Electricity Supply BoardIR [1975] I.R. 1. 18 Gallagher v. Mogul of IrelandIR [1975] I.R. 204. 19 Batty v. Metropolitan Realisations Ltd.ELR [1978] Q.B. 554. 20 Photo Production Ltd. v. Securicor Ltd.WLR [1978] 1 W.L.R. 856. 21 Nort......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT