Perry v Statham, Ltd (No. 2)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1930
• Date: 01 January 1930
• Court: Supreme Court (Irish Free State)

[S. C., I.F.S.]

Perry

and

Statham, Limited (No. 2)

Licensee -Motor workshop - Inspection pit - Injuries caused by fall into pit - Concealed danger or "trap" -Authority of mechanic to permit entry into workshop - "Invitee," licensee, or trespasser - Duty towards licensee - Questions to be left to the jury -Jury finding negligence against plaintiff and defendant - Practice - Particulars - Evidence of contributory negligence inconsistent with particulars furnished - Time for objection.

The plaintiff was admitted to the defendant's motor workshop, after business hours, by a mechanic in their employment, for the purpose of ascertaining, for his own purposes, the engine number of his car, which was being repaired there. While there, the plaintiff fell into an inspection pit and sustained injuries. He brought an action for damages. The defendants alleged negligence on the part of the plaintiff, and, in the particulars of his negligence furnished by them, alleged that the plaintiff had fallen into the pit before their employee had an opportunity to light the workshop and after he had offered to do so. At the trial, however, they proved, without apparent objection by the plaintiff, until after the charge to the jury, that the workshop was fully lighted at the time of the accident. At the trial, it appeared that the accident occurred while the plaintiff was walking round one end of his car, the mechanic, carrying a hand inspection-lamp, having walked round the other end of the car. The plaintiff fell into a gap between the end of his car and the end of the inspection pit over which it was standing. Evidence was given by the defendants that the inspection pit was never covered while there was a car standing over it; and that only the "management staff," not a mechanic, had authority to admit visitors to the workshop. The plaintiff admitted that he had been in the workshop on at least one previous occasion. On the evidence, the jury found (1) that the mechanic permitted the plaintiff to enter the workshop and inspect his car; (2) that he had authority to permit the plaintiff to do so; (3) that the plaintiff was aware of the inspection pit, or should have anticipated its existence; (4) that the inspection pit was a concealed danger; (5) that the defendants...