Lynch v Palgrave Murphy Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 13 April 1964
• Date: 13 April 1964
• Court: Supreme Court

(S.C.)

Lynch

and

Palgrave Murphy Ltd

Negligence of workman during period of transfer - Whether permanent or temporary master liable - Test of right to control workman -Question of fact - Onus of proof.

The plaintiff was a dock labourer employed by the defendants who were unloading a ship in the port of Dublin and transporting heavy bales of paper, by means of a fork-lift truck driven by B., from the quay-side to a transit shed. On arrival at the shed the bales were stacked in tiers by operating the forks of the truck and it was part of the plaintiff's duties to assist in such stacking. While the plaintiff was engaged in stacking a bale, B.negligently lowered the prongs of the fork-lift with the result that the plaintiff's thumb was crushed between one of the prongs and a bale of paper. The fork-lift truck and the services of its driver, B., had been hired by the defendants from C. at the inclusive rate of £1 per hour. B.was employed, paid and was liable to be dismissed by C. The defendants, by their foreman, were entitled to give B. directions as to where the truck was to be driven, the nature of the load to be carried and the place where the load was to be deposited, but the driving of the truck and the operation of the controls of the fork-lift were not matters upon which the defendants could properly issue instructions to B. The plaintiff sued the defendants for damages for negligence and pleaded that B. was the servant and agent of the defendants, and this plea was denied by the defendants. At the trial of the action before Teevan J., and a jury, an application on behalf of the defendants was made at the close of the plaintiff's case for a direction on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to discharge the burden of proving that B. was the servant or agent of the defendants at the time of the accident. The application was refused and the defendants did not adduce any evidence. The jury found that B. at the time of the accident was the servant or agent of the defendants and that the defendants, their servants or agents, were guilty of negligence and they assessed damages at £1,200. On an appeal by the defendants to the Supreme Court, it was held by the Supreme Court, 1, that the solution to the...