Kielthy v Ascon Ltd
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judgment Date | 18 December 1970 |
Date | 18 December 1970 |
Docket Number | [1967. No. 532 P.] |
Court | Supreme Court |
Building site - Means of access to employer's office on site - Unsafe route along top of wall - Workman found dead at foot of wall - Inference from facts - Juryman failing to attend second day of trial - Trial adjourned -Costs of second day - Statute - Interpretation -Rules of the Superior Courts, 1962 (S.I. No. 72 of 1962), Or. 99, r. 1 - Courts of Justice Act, 1924 (No. 10 of 1924), s. 95 - Juries Act, 1927 (No. 23 of 1927), s. 64 - Factories Act, 1955 (No. 10 of 1955), ss. 37, 88.
The plaintiff, who sued in the High Court on behalf of herself and other dependants of her deceased husband, claimed damages from the defendants for their alleged breach of statutory duty and negligence which, she claimed, had caused the death of her husband at a building site while in the employment of the defendants who were building contractors. At the trial there was evidence that the plaintiff's husband had decided to go to the defendants' office at the building site; that he had set out in the direction of the office on a route which at one stage ran along the top of an unfinished wall with a 31/2 foot drop on one side and a longer drop on the other side, and which wag only 9 inches wide at the top; that such route was not the only, or the safest, route to the office but that the route was invariably used by the workmen when they went to the office; and that the plaintiff's husband had been found dead at the foot of the wall with a broken neck. The defendants conceded that the route along the top of the wall had become a "recognised route." In his opening address to the jury, counsel for the plaintiff cited certain statutory provisions which required fencing and a minimum width of 17 inches for gangways but, although those provisions were not applicable to the facts of the case, the trial judge refused an application to have the jury discharged. The foreman of the jury failed to attend on the second day of the trial as he believed mistakenly that the court was not sitting on that day, and the trial was adjourned to and completed on the next day. The jury found that the deceased had fallen from the wall due to the defendants' failure to provide and maintain a safe...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cooper-Flynn v Raidió Teilifís Éireann
...OF JUSTICE ACT 1924 S95 ARNOTT V O'KEEFFE 1977 IR 1 BENNETT V GUARDIAN NEWSPAPERS UNREP CA 8.7.1998 1998 EWCA CIV 1178 KIELTY V ASCON LTD 1970 IR 122 RSC O.58 r7(2) RSC O.36 r36 KAVANAGH V THE LEADER 2001 1 IR 538 BOLTON V O'BRIEN 1885 16 LR IR 97 LAW REFORM COMMISSION CONSULTATION PAPER ......
-
Wolfe v Wolfe
...LTD 1997 2 ILRM 45 FAHY V PULLEN 102 ILTR 81 RSC O.99 r37(33) O'DRISCOLL V IRISH SHELL & BP LTD 1968 IR 215 KIELTHY V ASCON LTD 1970 IR 122 BOURGOINE V TAYLOR 1878 47 LJ CH 542 ASCHERBERG HOPWOOD & CREW LTD V CASA MUSICALE SONZOGNO DI PIERO OSTALI 1971 3 AER 38 E M BOWDENS PATENT SYNDICAT......
-
Edward O'Connor v Wexford County Council
...they have a safe system of work for the benefit of their employees.” 39 The second relevant quotation is from Kielthy v Ascon Limited [1970] IR 122 where Ó'Dálaigh CJ said (at 129):- “In my opinion if an employer offers without distinction a number of modes of access to the company's office......