Martin v M'Taggart Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: K. B. Div.
• Judgment Date: 05 December 1905
• Court: King's Bench Division (Ireland)
• Year: 1906
• Docket Number: (1905. No. 13,158.)
• Date: 05 December 1905

Martin

and

W. R. M'Taggart, Limited, and Kinnear (1).

K. B. Div.

(1905. No. 13,158.)

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.

1906.

Practice — Contributory negligence — Inevitable accident — Particulars — G. O. XIX., Rr. 6, 7.

Where, in an action for negligence, the defendants pleaded in general terms inevitable accident and contributory negligence, the Court ordered particulars.

Action for damages for personal injuries to the plaintiff, caused by the defendants, or their servants, negligently, improperly, and unskilfully, driving and managing a motor car in the city of Dublin.

In addition to traversing the several allegations in the statement of claim, the defendants, who pleaded separately, alleged—(a) that the alleged damage, if any, arose from inevitable accident; (b) that there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

Plaintiff joined issue, and pleaded that if there was contributory negligence (which he denied), the defendants could, by ordinary and reasonable care and skill, have avoided causing the injuries complained of.

The defendants declined to comply with a notice served by the plaintiff requiring particulars of these defences on the grounds—first, that such particulars were immaterial; secondly, that they were sought for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the facts alleged in the defence; thirdly, that they were known to the plaintiff; and, fourthly, that they were oppressive. The plaintiff now applied to the Court for an order that the defendants should give particulars, the application being grounded on an affidavit of the plaintiff, stating that he was not aware of any circumstances

which would constitute inevitable accident or contributory negligence on his part; that the particulars were absolutely necessary to enable him to know what case he would have to meet, and to limit the issues, and save expenses, and to prevent plaintiff being taken by surprise at the trial; that the particulars were not sought for to discover the defendants’ proofs, but were essential, material, and relevant to the action.

W.G. Gibson, for the plaintiff, referred to the Annual Practice, 1906, vol. i., pp. 230, 232.

A. A. Dickie, for the defendants, cited Gouraud v. Fitzgerald (1); Rattray v. Cork and Macroom Railway Company (2); Coughlan v. Flanagan (3).

Gibson, in reply:—

These cases only show...