Rafter v Edmund Rice Schools Trust Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Noonan |
| Judgment Date | 26 July 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] IECA 188 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Docket Number | Record No. 2023/50 |
[2023] IECA 188
Noonan J.
Binchy J.
Butler J.
Record No. 2023/50
High Court Record No. 2021/1283P
COURT OF APPEAL
Liability – Damages – Differential costs order – Appellant appealing against finding on liability – Whether the appellant was found liable to the respondent on the basis of a case that was never pleaded nor advanced in the opening of the case, nor in the respondent’s own evidence
Facts: The plaintiff/respondent, Mr Rafter, was a schoolboy at the school of the defendant/appellant, Edmund Rice Schools Trust Company Ltd, when he injured his finger using a mechanical saw during woodworking class. The High Court (Murphy J) found that the school was liable and awarded general damages of €35,000 to the plaintiff. As this fell within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, the judge made a differential costs order. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal against the finding on liability and the plaintiff cross-appealed the differential costs order. The primary ground of appeal advanced by the defendant was that it was found liable to the plaintiff on the basis of a case that was never pleaded nor advanced in the opening of the case, nor in the plaintiff’s own evidence. The defendant further complained that the judge found it liable on the basis of findings of fact not supported by credible evidence, and that the High Court’s conclusions on the standard of care did not find support in any admissible or competent expert evidence that was led in the case. In his cross-appeal, the plaintiff complained that the judge erred in making the differential costs order by relying only on cases that were concerned with assessments of damage, whereas the case was defended on the basis of being a test case on liability, with potential consequences for all schools teaching similar courses. The plaintiff also argued that the medical evidence was such as to warrant instituting proceedings in the High Court when the plaintiff was a minor, and that was the essential issue that the judge should have considered. The defendant did not apply to remit the action to the Circuit Court.
Held by Noonan J that the trial judge was entitled to conclude that a proper level of supervision of the plaintiff, undertaking that particular task, required that the teacher kept his hands under observation at the relevant time. The judge concluded that the failure to take that step amounted to a want of a proper supervision and Noonan J could see no reason why the judge was not entitled to reach such conclusion on the facts as she found them. The defendant complained that the judge failed to identify the appropriate standard of care which was said to undermine her conclusion on liability but it was in Noonan J’s view readily inferred from her judgment. In Noonan J’s experience it would be unusual in most negligence cases for the judge to first recite a notional standard of care before concluding that there was a want of adequate care on the part of the defendant. Noonan J held that the requirement is to take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances, whether it be described as equivalent to the care a prudent parent would take for their child or otherwise. Noonan J also agreed with the judge’s view that there was no reason to consider that the decision had any particular implications beyond the very specific facts of the case. Noonan J dismissed the appeal.
Noonan J held that there was nothing to indicate from the pleadings or otherwise that this ought to have been regarded somehow as in the nature of a test case. He could not see any basis upon which it could realistically be said that there was any significant degree of uncertainty about the plaintiff’s prognosis or the severity of his injuries. The case appeared to Noonan J to have been clearly and patently a Circuit Court case at all relevant times. He was therefore satisfied that the trial judge was correct in making the costs order she did and that she exercised her discretion in that regard properly and appropriately. Noonan J dismissed the cross-appeal. His provisional view was that as the plaintiff had been entirely successful in the appeal, he should be entitled to his costs; similarly, as the defendant had been entirely successful in the cross-appeal, it too should get its costs.
Appeal dismissed. Cross-appeal dismissed.
Judgment of Mr. Justice Noonan delivered on the 26th of July, 2023 .
. The plaintiff was at the relevant time a schoolboy at the defendant's school when he injured his finger using a mechanical saw during woodworking class. The High Court (Murphy J.) found that the school was liable and awarded general damages of €35,000 to the plaintiff. As this fell within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, the judge made a differential costs order. The defendant has appealed the finding on liability and the plaintiff has cross-appealed the differential costs order.
. The accident occurred on 8 th March 2019, four days after the plaintiff's 16 th birthday. He was a Junior Cert student at the defendant's school in Tramore, County Waterford, and had taken technology, which included woodwork, as one of his chosen subjects for the Junior Cert. His woodworking teacher was Mr Mansfield, but on the day of the accident the bandsaw in Mr Mansfield's classroom was not working so he was sent across the way to the classroom of another woodworking teacher, Mr Cahill, where the bandsaw was working.
. A bandsaw is a powered saw with a fixed narrow vertical blade, which as the name implies, comprises a continuously rotating band. The workpiece is fed towards the blade which can cut complex shapes such as a jigsaw piece. On the date of the accident, the plaintiff had used a bandsaw on at most two previous occasions when he was supervised by Mr. Mansfield. The evidence of Mr. Mansfield, which the judge accepted, was that the plaintiff had received theoretical instruction on the use of the bandsaw and observed a demonstration by the teacher. The plaintiff's woodworking project required him to cut small pieces of wood to shape using the bandsaw and in the course of doing so, his right index finger came in contact with the blade, and he suffered an injury.
. In his personal injuries summons, issued on 1 st of March 2021, the plaintiff pleads that “ he was not supervised at the time and was not accompanied by the woodwork teacher.”. There is also a plea that the guard on the machine was set at an excessively high level for the piece of wood being cut by the plaintiff. There are further complaints given in the particulars of negligence that the defendant failed to provide the plaintiff with appropriate protective wear or to give him adequate instruction on how to operate the machine. There is also a specific plea that the defendant was negligent in “ failing to properly supervise the students while using dangerous machinery.”.
. In its defence, the defendant specifically traverses the allegation of lack of supervision and pleads that Mr Cahill instructed the plaintiff on how to set up and operate the bandsaw for the piece of wood in question and while the plaintiff was carrying out this operation, Mr Cahill at all times stood within six feet of him.
. In opening the case to the court, counsel for the plaintiff stated that his evidence would be that he came into Mr Cahill's class where there were 20 to 25 students and Mr Cahill, who was at the top of the class, directed the plaintiff to use the bandsaw which was at the bottom of the class. As flagged by counsel for the plaintiff in opening the case, the facts pleaded in the defence were very significantly at variance with the plaintiff's instructions as to how the accident happened.
. The plaintiff gave his evidence in accordance with the opening by his counsel saying that he was sent down to the back of the room by Mr Cahill to use the bandsaw unaccompanied and unsupervised. He also said that Mr Cahill gave him no instruction on the use of the fence or guard rail and that he had no prior training in the use of the machine beyond using it once or twice before.
. As recorded in the judge's ex tempore judgment, the plaintiff's version of events was entirely contradicted by Mr Cahill. He said that he went down to the bandsaw with the plaintiff, examined the piece of wood that he was proposing to cut and set up the guard rail or fence for the plaintiff. Mr Cahill said he proceeded to start the first cut to demonstrate the correct holding technique to the plaintiff so that his fingers would not come in line with the blade. The plaintiff finished the first cut with Mr Cahill watching and Mr Cahill said that he saw the plaintiff start the second cut with his hands correctly positioned.
. At that point Mr Cahill moved to the far side of the bandsaw to be able to better observe the class while also observing the plaintiff and his evidence was that he was about five feet away from the plaintiff and looking back at him through the bandsaw. His evidence was that the plaintiff's hand was perfectly positioned on the second cut all the way through but, as the judge pointed out, if that had been so the accident could not have occurred. Under cross-examination, Mr Cahill agreed that he did not see the plaintiff's hand run into the blade. Mr Cahill said that his role was to be observe and supervise the student rather than breathing down his neck so that he would learn the skill independently. The plaintiff's teacher, Mr Mansfield, gave evidence as to the extensive instruction that the plaintiff had in relation to the use of the bandsaw prior to the accident.
. Commenting on this conflict of evidence between the plaintiff and the two teachers, the judge said that she preferred the evidence of the teachers....
To continue reading
Request your trial