Stewart v Killeen Paper Mills Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1960 |
| Date | 01 January 1960 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
Whether contributory negligence a defence - Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, s. 10 (1) (c) and (d).
The plaintiff was employed by the defendants in their paper mills as a drier man. It was his custom to help in the removal of drums of paper from the drying machine to a machine called a reeler, which trims and rolls paper and which is driven at high speed by electricity. It was part of his duty to warn the man in charge of the reeler of any dampness on the edges of the paper, and it was his custom, when there was dampness present, to wait at the reeler until the damp patch appeared and help in the removal of same from the machine, although this was not part of his duty. The reeler is fitted with a safety guard which should be in a "down" or safe position when the machine is set in motion. This guard covers the dangerous junction of two rollers in the machine and prevents any bulky matter from being drawn into the "nip"of the rollers. While standing by the reeler, having warned the operator that there was a damp patch on a roll of paper, the plaintiff, in an attempt to free the damp patch by hand, had his hand drawn into the rollers and sustained serious injuries. On this occasion, when the reeler had been set in motion, the guard had not been lowered but remained in an "up" or unsafe position. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants for damages in respect of his injuries sustained by reason of the negligence and breach of statutory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moorehouse v The Governor of Wheatfield Prison
...different meaning in an action for negligence than for an action for breaches of statutory duty. See Stewart v. Killeen Paper Mills Ltd [1959] I.R. 436 at 441. Contributory negligence at the common law is founded on the principle that one owes a duty to take care for one's own safety in any......
-
McWhinney v Cork City Council
...has been found to be in breach of a statutory duty. This is clear from many cases including Stewart v. Killeen Paper Mills Ltd. [1959] I.R. 436 (Supreme Court) and Dunne v. Honeywell Control Systems [1991] ILRM 595 (High Court, Barron J). It requires something more than a mere error of judg......
-
Connell v McGing
...BUILDING SUPPLIES LTD 1959 1 AER 414 HIGGINS V SOUTH OF IRELAND ASPHALT CO LTD 1961 101 ILTR 168 STEWART V KILLEEN PAPER MILLS LTD 1959 IR 436 KENNEDY V EAST CORK FOODS 1973 IR 244 CASWELL V POWELL DUFFRYN ASSOCIATED COLLIERIES LTD 1940 AC 152 FLOWER V EBBW VALE STEEL IRON & COAL CO 19......
-
Bowell v Dunnes Stores
...and in which he found himself. 70 70. The many decisions of the Superior Courts reaching back to Stewart v. Killeen Paper Mills Ltd (1959) IR 436 establish that in respect of a breach of statutory duty on the part of a workman an error of judgment, heedlessness or inadvertence does not amou......