Hayes v County Council of King's County

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date15 May 1917
Date15 May 1917
CourtKing's Bench Division (Ireland)
Hayes
and
County Council of King's County (1).

K. B. Div.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE KING'S BENCH DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL,

AND BY

THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.

1917.

Public Authorities' Protection — Limitation — Cause of Action — Contract with private individual — Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 61), sect. 1 (a).

The defendants, who were a road authority, erected a stone-crusher near a quarry for the purpose of obtaining road materials. They hired H. and his mare to draw waggon-loads of stones from the quarry to the crusher, and while engaged in this work the mare was fatally injured.

More than six months after the date of the accident H.'s administratrix commenced proceedings against the defendants to recover damages for the loss of the mare.

Held, that the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, did not afford a defence to the proceedings: per Campbell C.J., because that Act does not extend to private duties or obligations arising out of contracts with particular individuals: per Madden J., because the Act does not apply to a case where it was at the option of the public authority either to make or to refuse to make the particular contract out of which the cause of action arose: per Gordon J., because the cause of action did not arise in the direct execution by the defendants of any statute, or in the discharge of a public duty owed by them to all the public alike, or in the discharge of a public authority exercised by them impartially with regard to all the public.

Sharpington v. Fulham Guardians, [1904] 2 Ch. 449, and Bradford Corporation v. Myers, [1916] 1 A. C. 242, applied.

Special Case stated, pursuant to the provisions of sect. 35 of the Civil Bill Courts Procedure Amendment Act (Ireland), 1864 (27 & 28 Vict. c. 99), for the opinion of the King's Bench Division, by Ronan L.J., sitting as judge of assize at the Spring Assizes, 1917, for the King's County.

The case set out as follows:—

“1. The only question in this case is whether the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 61), constitutes on the facts a valid defence to the plaintiff's action.

“2. The plaintiff is the sister and administratrix of John Hayes, deceased, and sues the defendants for £20 damages, being the value of a mare the property of the said John Hayes, deceased, alleged to have been injured through the negligence of the

defendants, their servants or agents, at Ballaghmore, in the said county, on the 19th of August, 1915. The date of the civil bill process is the 9th of March, 1916, more than six months after the accident. The County Court Judge gave a decree for £20.

“3. The injuries sustained by the mare were such that she had to be destroyed, and no question was raised as regards the amount of the decree. The case was heard before me at Tullamore. and was subsequently argued in Dublin. Subject to the defence of the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, I held the plaintiff entitled to recover.

“4. The following facts were proved at the hearing:—

“(a) The defendants, in pursuance of their statutory duties as road authority and for the purpose of obtaining road materials, had a stone-crusher erected near a quarry at Ballaghmore. The stones were brought to the crusher in small waggons or trucks, which ran along a double line of railway, which had been roughly laid down between the quarry and the crusher.

“(b) The empty trucks ran down into the quarry by the force of gravitation, and when loaded they had to be dragged back again along the railway to the crusher, a horse being attached to the waggon for this purpose. The two lines of railway were close together, the inside rail of the one line being separated from the nearest rail of the other line by a space of four inches.

“(c) Hayes and his mare were hired by the defendants at the sum of 6s. per day, and his duty was to yoke the mare to a loaded waggon, lead the mare and waggon along between the rails to the appointed place, and then unyoke the mare and bring her back again to draw up another waggon.

“(d) Hayes started at his work on the 30th of June, and he worked intermittently thereat until his mare was injured on the 19th of August.

“(e) On that day, as Hayes was turning his mare when she was between the two lines of railway, one of her feet was caught under one of the rails, and she was thrown down. Her hip was broken by the fall; and in consequence of the injuries she so received she had to be destroyed on the following day. At the place where the occurrence took place the rails were not pegged down to the ground in any way, nor were they ballasted.

“(f) The operations at the quarry and stone-crusher were being carried on under the general supervision of J. F. O'Sullivan, the county surveyor.

“5. Leonard, for the defendants, submitted that on two grounds the defendants were not liable. The first of these is not now material. The second contention relied upon by the defendants was that the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, was a valid defence to the plaintiff's action; and that the action was not maintainable, inasmuch as it was not instituted within six months after the act, neglect, or default complained of.

“6. Shannon, for the plaintiff, relied on the decision and judgments in Bradford Corporation v. Myers (1), and contended that inasmuch as the duty, for the neglect of which the defendants were sought to be made liable, was a duty towards Hayes imposed upon them by a private contract with him, and was not a duty towards the public generally, the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, afforded no defence for the defendants.

“7. The defendants referred to The King (Westropp) v. Clare County Council (2), sects. 12, 82, sub-s. 1, and 109 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 37), sect. 162 of the Grand Jury (Ireland) Act, 1836 (6 & 7 Wm. 4, c. 116), and the following articles, viz.:—22, 24 (1), 25 (2), 25 (5), 25a and 32 of the Local Government (Procedure of Councils) Order, 1899, as amended by the Local Government (Procedure of Councils) Orders, 1901 and 1905, in support of the proposition that there was a direct statutory duty upon the defendants to repair their roads in one or other of the alternative methods provided for by said articles. The defendants contended that the neglect complained of in the present case arose in the course of the direct execution of their public duties.

“8. In view of the importance of the point raised to public bodies generally, I agreed at the request of the defendants, and without expressing any opinion on the point raised, to state, and I now accordingly state, this case for the King's Bench Division, upon the one point as to whether the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, is a valid defence to the action upon the facts stated.

“9. If the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, is a valid

defence to the plaintiff's action, the decree of the County Court Judge is to be reversed, and the Civil Bill dismissed on the merits with costs in the County Court and costs of the appeal.

“If the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, is not such a valid defence, the decree for £20 is to be affirmed, with £2 9s. costs, and £1 10s. witnessess' expenses in the County Court, and costs and witnesses' expenses on the appeal.

“The defendants have agreed that, in any event, they will pay the plaintiff's costs of the hearing of this case stated in the King's Bench Division, and (if an appeal be taken) in the Court of Appeal, the last-mentioned costs being limited to £10.”

Leonard, for the defendants:—

In procuring the stones for the repair of the roads the defendants were acting under the provisions of Article 25 (a) of the Local Government (Procedure of Councils) Order, 1899. I submit that the negligence of which the defendants were guilty was a neglect or default in the direct execution of an Act of Parliament, and in the direct execution of their public duty to provide materials for the upkeep of the roads, and so was such a neglect or default as is within the protection of sect. 1 of the Public Authorities...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Hickey v Tipperary County Council
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court (Irish Free State)
    • 20 May 1931
    ...FitzGibbon and Murnaghan JJ. (3) 4 App. Cas. 115. (4) 12 C.B. 160. (5) 1 Taunt. 529. (1) [1929] I. R. 107. (2) [1927] I. R. 513. (3) [1917] 2 I. R. 496. (4) [1919] 2 I. R. 398. (5) 56 L.J. (Q.B.) 284. (6) Vaugh. 330, at p. 351. (7) 4 H. & N. 67, at p. 74. (8) [1926] 1 K. B. 160. (9) 4 B. & ......

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