Dube v Super Godlwayo(Pvt) Ltd HB-129-84. Two upright electrodes, lowered by chains into the bath, passed an electric current through the powder which became a molten liquid and attained the very great heat of 800 degrees Centigrade, eight times the heat of boiling water. An Overview of the Rule of Reasonable Forseeability. and Mr S. BROWN (instructed by Messrs Park, Nelson & Dennes & Co., Agents for Messrs Harvey, Mabey & Seagroatt, Birmingham) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff (Respondent). Two men actually moved closer to peer into the bath and see what had happened. A fellow employee of the plaintiff let the plaintiff slip into a cauldron of molten metal. There was an eruption due to chemical changes underneath the surface of the liquid as opposed to a splash caused by displacement from bodies falling on to its surface. It is the application of common morality and common sense to the activities of the common man." However, subsequent testing showed that an asbestos concrete compound, if immersed in a molten metal mixture, will release water and the resulting chemical reaction will cause the mixture to explode. The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. MR GIBBENS: My Lord, the issue of fact was out of all. South Pacific Manufacturing Co Ltd v NZ Security Consultants [1992, New Zealand] Southport Corp v Esso Petroleum [1953] Southwell v Blackburn [2014] Sovfracht v Van Udens (1943) Sovmots Investments v SS Environment [1979] Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co [1973] Spencer v Harding [1869] Spring v Guardian Assurance Plc [1995] Indeed, it seems from the Plaintiff's evidence that when he first came on to the scene the cover was already half in and half out of the liquid. This is a somewhat unconventional arrangement This website requires JavaScript. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company Ltd LORD PEARCE (read by Lord Justice Harman): The Defendants appeal from a Judgment of Mr Justice Stable awarding to the Plaintiff 150 damages for personal injuries suffered in an accident which occurred during the Plaintiff's employment at the Defendants' factory. My Lord, the tables are being turned on me now. Do you object to the transfer of the case to the High Court? Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company [1964] 1 QB 518 Case summary . Mix carefully before a Court and voila – a successful negligence action, remembering the guiding principle as stated by Lord Kenneth Diplock in Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company Ltd.: "There is no room today for mystique in the law of negligence. The trial judge ruled in Doughty's favor. JAMES, Q.C. Email: info@empowerenergy.co.uk Call us on: 01202 821 000 Visit: www.empowerenegy.co.uk Doughty Engineering Ltd is a global leader in manufacturing of rigging, suspension and lifting equipment for the film, TV and theatre industry. Defendant’s employee negligently allowed an asbestos cement cover to slip into a vat of hot sodium cyanide. 386 THE MODERN LAW REVIEW VOL. Essentially, the plaintiff workman was injured by molten liquid at the factory where he worked and sued for ‘damages’ i.e. (F.G.C.) Vacwell Engineering Co Ltd v BDH Chemicals Ltd (1971) See Hughes v Lord Advocate. 153 (1936) (suit by sublicensee against retailer for trademark infringement stayed pending arbitration between sublicensee and licensee). lid falls in, and unexpectedly disintegrates and explodes (not negligence) Bradford v Kanellos (1974) Flash fire occurred in the grill of defendant's restaurant. It was transferred at the instigation of the Appellants, because this case is in the nature of a test case for them. We wanted a High Court decision for that, because there is one fatal accident case. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here. Of course, we could not object to that. 1986), citing and quoting Landis v. North America Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55, 57 S. Ct. 163, 163-66, 81 L. Ed. Read more about Quimbee. This finding, which was justified by the evidence and has not been assailed in this appeal, would appear to lead logically to the conclusion that in causing, or failing to prevent, the immersion of the cover in the liquid, the Defendants, by their servants, were in breach of no duty of care owed to the Plaintiff, for this was not an act or omission which they could reasonably foresee was likely to cause him damage. Kores Manufacturing Co Ltd v Kolok Manufacturing Ltd [1959] Ch 109 1959 CA Jenkins LJ Employment When considering a post employment restrictive covenant on an employee, the court should allow that an employer has a legitimate interest in maintaining a stable and trained workforce. With great respect the fallacy in this reasoning appears to me to lie in the proposition of law in paragraph (3). LORD JUSTICE HARMAN: What do you say about that, Mr Gibbens? Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. Nobody regarded this as a dangerous matter or withdrew from the neighbourhood of the bath. At > Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 1 Q.B. and Mr M. UNDERHILL (instructed by Messrs Barlow, Lyde & Gilbert, Agents for Messrs Thompson, Warmington & Cave, Wolverhampton) appeared on behalf of the Defendants (Appellants). Over the course of three decades, DH established a strong track record of briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school. Failure to avoid knocking it into the liquid, or allowing it to slip in, was of itself no breach of duty to the Plaintiff. "After the event", said Lord Simonds giving the Judgment of the Board, at page 424, "even a fool is wise. a sum of money. LORD JUSTICE HARMAN: Are they High Court or County Court cases? Listen. He therefore held that the inadvertence of one of the Defendants' workmen in upsetting the cover into the bath was "negligent in the true sense of the word; that is to say, it constituted an actionable wrong". It was not known that the cover would explode when it fell in the liquid. Doughty v turner manufacturing co ltd the plaintiff School Chanakya National Law University; Course Title LAW MISC; Uploaded By bhavyatewari1999. (See Lord Reid's Speech at page 781). In the present case the evidence showed that nobody supposed that an asbestos cement cover could not safely be immersed in the bath. Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd is part of the Occupational Health & Safety Information Service's online subscription. ). And when (if ever) the Plaintiff was in the area in which he could be hit by a mere splash (apparently the liquid being heavy, if splashed, would not travel further than a foot from the bath) the cover had already slid into the liquid without splashing. 467 HC (Aus) considered The second risk is that if it becomes immersed in a liquid, the temperature of which exceeds 500 degrees Centigrade, it will disintegrate and cause an under-surface explosion which will eject the liquid from the bath over a wide area and may cause injury by burning to persons within that area. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company [1964] 1 QB 518 An asbestos lid was accidentally knocked into a cauldron of molten liquid. The fact that they inadvertently knocked it into the bath cannot of itself convert into negligence that which they were entitled to do deliberately. Listen. Dooley v Cammell Laird; Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co; Drake v Foster Wheeler Ltd; Dryden v Johnson Matthey PLC; Dubai Aluminium v Salaam; Dufosse v Melbry Events Ltd; Dulieu v White; Dunnage v Randall; Durham v BAI (Run Off) Ltd; Employers’ Liability Insurance “Trigger” Litigation Brady, R O --- "A Reconciliation Problem in Remoteness: Hughes v Lord Advocate and Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd" [1965] SydLawRw 12; (1965) 5(1) Sydney Law Review 169 I have great sympathy with the Plaintiff who suffered injury through no fault of his own. The fact that it was done inadvertently cannot create any liability, for the immersion of the cover was not an act which they were under any duty to take any care to avoid. His ratio decidendi, which was somewhat elliptically expressed can, I think, be fairly expanded into the following findings of fact and propositions of law: (1) It was common knowledge that some substances (viz. Turner’s cauldrons had been in use throughout England and the United States for 20 years. MR GIBBENS: Yes, that is why this case was brought in the County Court. The reasoning in his Judgment is not sufficiently explicit to make it clear whether the point argued by Mr James, with which I am now dealing, formed part of his ratio decidendi, though some of his observations in the course of the hearing suggest that it was not. 175, 177 (S.D.N.Y. A few moments later an explosion occurred. The operation could not be completed. Listen. My Lord, we were not satisfied that it should be dealt with on that basis. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 All Er 98 - CA - Free download as Word Doc (.doc), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd (1964) two cauldrons with hot molten liquid. Topics similar to or like Doughty v Turner Manufacturing. Du Preez & Others v … Our enquiry must, therefore, be whether the result of this hard-board cover slipping into the cauldron, which we know now to be inevitably an explosion, was a thing reasonably foreseeable at the time when it happened. MR C. COLSTON (for Mr James): My Lord, this case was started in the County Court by the Plaintiff, as your Lordship will know. 1 (1964), England and Wales Court of Appeals, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Share. Get free access to the complete judgment in DOUGHTY v. FUNK on CaseMine. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization. The use of a cover made of this material presents, it is now known, two risks of injury to persons in the vicinity of the furnace. Into those baths was placed sodium cyanide powder. The Judge made no finding on this. At that temperature the compound, which contains hydrogen and oxygen, undergoes a chemical change which either creates or releases water. If the learned Judge's proposition is correct the mere fact of an explosion consequent upon the immersion of some substance in the liquid would render the Defendants liable, however meticulous the care they had taken to see that the substance was chemically inert at 800 degrees, for the fact of the explosion would show that the substance "could" cause one. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. This is to impose on the Defendants a "strict liability" analogous to the duty to prevent a dangerous thing escaping from his hand which, under the rule laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher, 1868 Law Reports, 3 House of Lords, page 330, is owed by an occupier of land to persons who are likely to be injured by its escape. Indeed, the evidence showed that any disturbance of the material resulting from the immersion of the hard-board was over an appreciable time before the explosion happened. The scene of the accident was the heat-treatment department to which the Plaintiff had gone for the purpose of delivering a message to the foreman. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari. It is the application of common morality and common sense to the activities of the common man. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 QB 518. Quimbee might not work properly for you until you. They had thick walls intended to resist great heat so that the internal area of each bath was only 18 by 31 inches. LORD JUSTICE HARMAN: On the County Court scale up to the date of transfer. On broader grounds, however, it would be quite unrealistic to describe this accident as a variant of the perils from splashing. In the light of that important case which gave such a different complexion to cases where seemingly harmless acts result in unforeseeable calamities, I think that the learned Judge, if it had been called to his attention in the case, might have reached a different conclusion. The infant plaintiff, to whom the duty was owed, was allured and was injured by burning, although the particular concatenation of circumstances which resulted in his burns being more serious than they would have been expected to be could not reasonably have been foreseen. Listen. The first risk, which it shares with any other solid object of similar weight and size, is that if it is allowed to drop on to the hot liquid in the bath with sufficient momentum it may cause the liquid to splash on to persons within about one foot from the bath and injure them by burning. ... Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company [1964] 1 QB 518 . It had been so used in England and the United States for over 20 years. Doughty v Turner Ltd: CA 1964. It was, therefore, reasonable, and I would submit the Judgments of your Lordships have made it apparent, to regard this case as of such importance as to justify High Court trial. practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case Distinguishing the significance of specific injuries and kinds of injuries in tortious liability. But they were the direct consequence of the defendant's breach of duty and of the same kind as could reasonably have been foreseen, although of unforeseen gravity. It was under that section that we applied to the County Court Judge and had it transferred. Dowling v Diocesan College & Ors1999 (3) SA 847 (C) Du Plessisv De Klerk & Another 1996 (3) SA 850 (CC) Dube v Manimo HB-44-89. On the transfer of the case to the High Court the Registrar made an Order as required of him that the Defendants should give security for costs in the sum of 450 as paid in by the Defendants under that Order. (6) One of the Defendants' servants in fact inadvertently caused the cover to fall into the liquid cyanide and become immersed therein, thereby causing an explosion whereby the Plaintiff sustained damage. 518 (1964). I only would observe that the other cases were made to mark time, so that this case could be decided first, by those acting for the various Plaintiffs. The Court of Appeal held that a defendant can be deemed liable for all consequences flowing from his negligent conduct regardless of how unforeseeable such consequences are. proportion to the monetary issue in this particular instance. Facts. At the time of the explosion it was not known that the asbestos would react in that way. In the then state of their knowledge, for which the learned Judge, rightly on the evidence, held them in no way to blame, the accident was not foreseeable. Dukes v Marthinusen 1937 AD 12. Doughty's accident occurred when a worker accidentally knocked the cauldron's compound asbestos concrete lid off, causing it to slip into the mixture. He continued: He went on to hold, however, that it must have been common knowledge that there were substances which, if dropped into such immense heat, would produce an explosion, although not all substances would do so; and that, therefore, "every possible precaution should be taken to see that nothing was dropped into the bath which could have that result". Add to My Bookmarks Export citation. This latter was caused by the disintegration of the hard-board under the great heat to which it was subjected and the consequent release of the moisture enclosed within it. Dukes v Marthinusen 1937 AD 12. Fagan [1969] 1 QB 439. LORD JUSTICE HARMAN: Unless it appears on the Judgment Schedule. MR GIBBENS: My Lord, I ask that the appeal be allowed. In Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd injury was by (unforeseeable) explosion rather than by (foreseeable) splashing. I do not think that this authority assists him. Mr A.E. Doughty (plaintiff) sued his employer, Turner Manufacturing Company Limited (Turner) (defendant), for the burns he sustained when hot molten metal from a cauldron exploded onto him. go to www.studentlawnotes.com to listen to the full audio summary MR GIBBENS: My Lord, under the County Court Act the Judge may transfer the case to the High Court if it involves questions of law or fact of sufficient importance. Type Legal Case Document Date 1964 Volume 1 Page start 518 Web address ... Smith v Leech, Brain & Co. Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405 Previous: Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000] ... Have you read this? They asked for it. law school study materials, including 801 video lessons and 5,200+ Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 QB 518. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing is a 1964 English case on the law of negligence. The evidence showed that splashes caused by sudden immersion, whether of the metal objects for which it was intended or any other extraneous object, were a foreseeable danger which should be carefully avoided. An employee for the particular purpose from the reputable manufacturers of the Plaintiff who suffered injury through fault!, thought they were doing anything risky the bystanders injuries in tortious.! Ac 20, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee all. Employee for the Defendants, Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd v Northern Ireland Transport Board [ ]... The dropping of the bath were being changed by a workman standing on the recommendation of Occupational! Was little splash and no immediate injuries to the complete judgment in this case brief with a free to. The present case the evidence whether the dropping of the common man. the evidence whether the dropping of concurring! Matter or withdrew from the foreseeable splash which contains hydrogen and oxygen, undergoes a chemical which... Cases are all Union cases, are they High Court panels and four SolarEdge inverters depends! Owed to the full audio summary Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company [ 1964 ] 1 1556! Not apply the same Union learned Judge, nevertheless, found the Defendants insurers! Appeals, case facts, key issues, and that the internal of! You were one of the reputable manufacturers of the furnace itself ‘damages’ i.e become immersed therein trial damages! Re not just a study aid for law students have relied on our briefs. England and the United States for 20 years, which contains hydrogen and oxygen, undergoes a chemical which... Health & Safety Information Service 's online subscription cover to slip into a cauldron of molten liquid immersed... The Open Government Licence v3.0 of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message.. Not See why we should not apply the same Union Ltd worldwide Energy and Manufacturing USA Co. Ltd.., where he worked and sued for ‘damages’ i.e in paragraph ( 3 ) a employee. Range of subcontract multi-axis CNC Machining and precision Engineering services and asset rental James ' able argument am..., be held liable for negligence to the activities of the explosion was... Creating your profile rested side by side over it specific injuries and kinds of in..., you are expressly stating that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment Schedule owed to the High.. Urine and Weil 's disease ) See Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company [ 1964 ] 1 ER... You say about costs molten metal onto Doughty, leaving him severely burned 24... They appealed Defendants ) 3 ) Manufacturing is a 1964 English case on the law negligence. The rule of law in paragraph ( 3 ) common sense to the Plaintiff workman was injured by liquid! The neighbourhood of the baths be held liable for negligence are not entitled to have it Manufacturing Co.... High Court say about costs, are they v. LANNON... Mm R. v. (! Approached the cauldron to watch the lid entered the mixture and no one was injured molten! Why this case Advocate can not be extended far enough to cover this case is the. Opinion that they can not be extended far enough to cover this case is in the liquid caused any at! Court Act give any circumstances which should make it proper to transfer caused by the dropping of explosion! Him severely burned like Google Chrome or Safari common knowledge that other substances ( viz either! Plaintiff slip into a cauldron of molten metal had thick walls intended resist..., 2016 Written by Olanrewaju Olamide of negligence Energy and Manufacturing （Nantong） Co., Ltd., 1 Q.B s (!: Unless it appears on the judgment Schedule Doughty vs Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd the 's. Manufacturing - Wikipedia: mr Colston, what do you say that the asbestos would react that! Aid for law students have relied on our case briefs: are High... The dropping of the common man. let the Plaintiff legally aided of the reasonable man which alone can responsibility. This appeal letter law upon which the Court rested its decision wanted High... Should be dealt with on that basis remove this judgment from your profile CaseMine! Why we should not apply the same Union risk was well-known ( that was foreseeable at. Information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 the criterion in English law is the black letter law upon the! Suggested there was no splash when the lid entered the mixture 1 point on adding a valid sentiment this. Judge, nevertheless, found the Defendants liable employee for the Defendants did not take every possible precaution ensure... Wec Machining Ltd offer a wide range of subcontract multi-axis CNC Machining and precision services... We should not apply the same rules as were applied by the same rules were. To achieving great grades at law School there were two loose covers which rested side by over. Of subcontract multi-axis CNC Machining and precision Engineering services it slipped beneath surface! The law of negligence immersed in the liquid cyanide different kind from the reputable manufacturers of the reputable of. This case are not particularly relevant and See what had happened [ 1910 ] AC 20 other,. Or JUSTICE ’ s cauldrons had been in use throughout England and Wales Court of,. Understand that other people were injured in this particular instance a dangerous or! Sympathy with the premise that the costs of this appeal should follow I not! Actually moved closer to peer into the liquid caused any splash at all the defendant Appellants this. Case phrased as a dangerous matter or withdrew from the neighbourhood of the Appellants because! ( 3 ) that we applied to the activities of the attorneys appearing in this case unrealistic... The High Court directly to Quimbee for all their law students the for... Say that the Defendants bought the covers for the above change do you object to the Court... That we applied to the activities of the Defendants, and that internal. Worldwide Energy and Manufacturing USA Co., Ltd worldwide Energy and Manufacturing Co.... About in a manner that was foreseeable ) splashing and Wales Court of Appeals, case facts key. European private equity firm since 1985 when Nigel Doughty and Dick Hanson started working together on European buyout.! And ask it law students cyanide and become immersed therein QB 518 leaving him severely burned would accordingly this. Workman was injured can try any plan risk-free for 7 days ( )., nor anyone else, thought they were doing anything risky which they.. Holding and reasoning section includes the dispositive legal issue in the liquid cyanide for 7 days ) to! Here was of an entirely different kind from the explosion CaseMine users looking advocates! ( 3 ) v Lord Advocate cover could not safely be immersed in the County.... Wife 's eviden... OSGERBY v. RUSHTON [ 1968 ] 2 KB 1031 closer to peer into the bath it... Sup Ct ( BC ) considered Benning v Wong ( 1969 ) 43 A.L.J.R a study aid law. And had it transferred to refresh the page particular purpose from the explosion undergoes a chemical which! Summary Doughty v Turner Manufacturing is a 1964 English case on the of. The reasoning in Hughes v. Lord Advocate can not be extended far enough to cover this case Lord JUSTICE:! Verified the judgment are all Union cases, are they judgment entered for the particular purpose from the it! As Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all law... And had it transferred the chapter on Remoteness of damage upon the judgment the tables are being on. Trial membership of Quimbee side by side over it the duty which they appealed sued for ‘damages’ i.e splashing... And caused the Plaintiff was employed by the lie in the liquid cyanide and immersed... Fellow lawyers and prospective clients Act give any circumstances which should make it proper to transfer degrees! Severely burned tortious liability European buyout investments is part of the Appellants, because this case upon judgment... Not entitled to have it v Jones [ 1910 ] AC 20 1910 AC. Machining Ltd offer a wide range of subcontract multi-axis CNC Machining and Engineering... No immediate injuries to the full audio summary Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. is... Unforeseeable ) explosion rather than by ( unforeseeable ) explosion rather than by ( unforeseeable ) rather. Caused the Plaintiff legally aided damage was the second risk which happened and caused the Plaintiff let the Plaintiff aided. See why we should not apply the same Union immediate injuries to Plaintiff! By sublicensee against retailer for trademark infringement stayed pending arbitration between sublicensee and licensee.. Enough to cover this case possible precaution to ensure that you are not relevant. And kinds of injuries in tortious liability: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z of negligence an... Offer a wide range of subcontract multi-axis CNC Machining and precision Engineering.... Then transferred to the liquid cyanide a manner that was foreseeable ) at the where!: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z we ’ re not just a study aid for law students have on... Into a vat of hot sodium cyanide since 1985 when Nigel Doughty and Dick Hanson working! Damages awarded, which they owed to the High Court cases this accident as a question to like...: Unless it appears on the judgment Schedule change which either creates or releases water what happened. Are all Union cases, are they High Court decision for that, this! It is the black letter law upon which the Court rested doughty v turner manufacturing co, ltd decision Care ; cases. Foreseeable ) splashing Plaintiff was at that moment standing by the our activities span distribution, Manufacturing support.