Pitters v Haughton
| Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
| Judge | Carey, J. |
| Judgment Date | 10 February 1978 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Jamaica) |
| Docket Number | C.L. 1975/P016 |
| Date | 10 February 1978 |
Supreme Court
Carey, J.
C.L. 1975/P016
D. Muirhead, Q.C. and L.O'B. Williams, N. Burgess for plaintiff.
D. Scharschmidt for defendant.
Tort - Damages — Breach of Statutory Duty
Damages - Personal injury — Severe burns to fingers — Quantum
The plaintiff was a laundry-woman with some twelve years experience, On January 14, 1974, she was the victim of a tragic accident at her workplace, the defendants establishment, whereby she has lost four fingers of her right hand, now virtually useless. Thus her present action, which is founded on breach of statutory duty and negligence. The breach of statutory duty and negligence alleged were pleaded in the following terms:
-
(1) Contrary to part II: 3(1) the Factories Regulations, 1961, the defendant failed to have the rollers of the said machine securely fenced or in any other way to make it safe to operate.
-
(2) Contrary to Part II: 3(1) (c) of the said Regulations, the defendant failed to operate and/ or maintain efficient devices or appliance in the said work place whereby the power could be promptly cut off from the said machine.
-
(3) Contrary to Part II: 16 of the said Regulations the defendant allowed the plaintiff to operate the said machine when she was incompetent to do so and was not directly under the supervision of a person competent to operate the said machine and was not fully instructed as to the dangers attendant upon the operation of the said machine and the precautions to be taken.
-
(3a) Contrary to Part II: 57 of the said Regulations, the defendant failed to appoint a person to exercise supervision of the said works, machinery and plant for the purpose of ensuring safety and to see that all safe guards and other safety appliances are maintained in proper order and position and to investigate accidents.
The defendant was negligent in that:
-
(1) He failed to provide a shield or in any other way protect the said machine from the wind although he knew it was dangerous to operate when the wind interferes with the work that was being pressed:
-
(2) He failed to provide a proper supervisor or any supervision for the said machine as to cope with the said emergency.
The defendant denied any breach of statutory duty or negligence on his part, and claimed that the plaintiff was negligent in failing to take sufficient care for her own safety.
A word concerning the pleadings. Although the plaintiff alleged some four breaches of the Factories Regulations, proof was lacking in all but the first. Indeed, Mr. Muirhead did not, in the course of his submissions, trouble himself to support those allegations. As regards the negligence alleged, even if the allegations were proven, which, in the event, they were not, those breaches of duty could not have caused the plaintiff to suffer the injuries, which she did. Mr. Muirhead did not at any time endeavour to suggest otherwise. The defendant's counsel did not even advert to this aspect of the pleadings. The case was fought wholly on the failure to fence as required by the Regulations. It becomes wholly unnecessary therefore, to devote any time to a consideration of those matters.
The circumstances, which gave rise to this action, may be shortly stated for there was little dispute in this regard. Before I deal with this aspect of the case, however, it may be helpful to describe the equipment upon which the plaintiff was engaged at the material time and its operation. I may add that I acceded to an application by defence counsel to visit and observe the machinery in use. The equipment, which is electrically operated, is called a “mangle” which is comprised of four rollers and is used to press flat items, viz, sheets, table-cloths, napkins and pillow cases. The machine is wide enough to accept an item such as a large sheet in its entirety, in which event two operators feed the material onto the machine. The material is actually placed onto a series of parallel belts called “feed-ribbons” which take the material under an idle-roller, and beneath the four hot rollers which in turn press the particular item, depositing the finished product at the other end of the machine, where it is received by two other workers. Immediately behind the idle-roller is a trip-guard five inches high which runs the entire width of the machine. Its purpose is to being the machinery to a stop when pushed. Behind this guard and some ten inches away, is the first of the four rollers. A wooden box has been attached to the front section of the equipment, where the operator normally stands and the distance between that spot and the first of the pressing rollers is two feet five inches. The height of the trip-guard above ground level is four feet three inches. Finally, I should add that this piece of machinery is housed in a shed open on all sides but one, where some pieces of metal sheets keep out rain and wind.
On January 14, Miss Pitters was feeding a tablecloth into this machine, assisted by a colleague, Miss Thelma Rowe who gave evidence on behalf of the defendant. Miss Rowe explained the fact of her own presence and that she was assisting the plaintiff in feeding the machine. The evidence of Miss Pitters was silent in this connection. A portion of the table-cloth on the plaintiff's side having folded over, she endeavored to correct this by extending her right hand over and beyond the trip-guard, so that it was nipped between the hot roller and feed-ribbons, holding her hand firmly fixed in that position where it was severely burnt. She said that she reacted by pressing the trip-guard but it took some four minutes for the machinery to come to a stop. Miss Rowe did not agree with this time lag. She testified and I accepted on balance that the machine came to a halt immediately. It was by reason of the plaintiff's inability to extricate her hand, which resulted in her hand eventually being so badly burnt. In the situation in which the plaintiff found herself, I did not consider she was ideally placed to estimate time accurately. As well as pressing the guard she also shouted for help. This attracted the not only of those persons serving immediately around that piece of equipment but others who were employed on the premises. Their presence and efforts proved less than helpful. Fortunately, a Mr. Alton Dunn, the driver-handyman, employed by the defendant came on the scene, and succeeded in releasing her hand. There was some conflict whether this gentleman was present at the time of the accident or came up some twenty minutes later. Miss Patters had estimated his time of arrival as twenty minutes after her hand had become caught, while Miss Rowe had said he had been on the premises from the outset. In this, the plaintiff differed from Mr. Dunn himself, Miss Rowe who was present when the accident occurred, and Miss Lucille Blake a sort of supervisor, all of whom gave evidence for the defendant. They all agreed, not surprisingly, with Mr. Dunn, that he was on the premises when the accident occurred and responded when Miss Pitters called for help.
I have already indicated that the pain and the traumatic circumstances in which Miss patters found herself held fast by this machine, which was slowly roasting her hand, did not predispose me to accept her estimate of time. I find that it did, however, take some time for him to reach the machine, remove the spring, which holds the guard over the wheel housing and then reverse the machine. The ensuing delay would, doubtless contribute to the severity of Miss Pitters' injuries.
The medical evidence showed that she had severe...
To continue reading
Request your trial