BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Johnson v. Mitchell & Co. [1885] ScotLR 22_698 (5 June 1885) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1885/22SLR0698.html Cite as: [1885] SLR 22_698, [1885] ScotLR 22_698 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 698↓
[Sheriff of Lanarkshire.
In an action at the instance of an employé in a match-work against his employers to recover damages for injuries which his hand had sustained in shutting a sliding door on the occasion of an alarm of fire, it was proved that the door in question was for the purpose of preventing fire communicating from one room to another, and that it was regularly closed at meal-times and at night; that it was not usually the duty of the pursuer to shut the door, and that he had never done so until the day of the accident, when he did so in obedience to an order from the foreman; that the door was moved by means of a handle, but that there was no check in the wall to stop the door, which in consequence ran on until brought up by the handle; and that a very small alteration would have made the door safe. Held in these circumstances that there was fault on the part of the defenders, and that the pursuer was entitled to damages.
This was an action of damages for personal injuries at the instance of Charles Johnson against Mitchell & Company, the Clydesdale Match Works, Govan, brought under the Employers Liability Act 1880 in the Sheriff Court at Glasgow.
The pursuer was in the employment of the defenders, and the following facts were proved:— There were in the match-works, on account of the great risk of fire, iron sliding doors running along on wheels or pulleys for the purpose of preventing a fire which had broken out from communicating to the drying-room or stores where the matches were stored. At the time of the accident these doors were pulled backwards and forwards by a handle, but there was no post or casework at the point where the door should have stopped. These doors were regularly closed at meal-times and at night by one of the girls in the work. On the occasion of an alarm of fire it appeared from the evidence of the foreman that it was the duty of all concerned to see to the closing of the doors. The pursuer never bad occasion to close any of these doors until the day of the accident. On that day an alarm of fire was given and the foreman called to the pursuer to shut one of these doors which was between the slab and drying-rooms. The pursuer rushed
Page: 699↓
forward and pulled the door to with considerable force, and not knowing that the door would run on until brought up by the handle, one of the fingers of his left hand, with which he held the handle, was jammed between the handle and the side of the doorway, and severely crushed. After the accident the defenders put up pieces of angle iron, which were sufficient to prevent such an occurrence in future.
The Sheriff-Substitute ( Erskine Murray) gave decree for £30.
The defenders appealed, and argued that the defender was in fault, as the evidence showed that the door was quite safe if carefully handled.
At advising—
The door in question was of a construction particularly suited to prevent fire communicating from one room to another, and the occasion on which the door was intended to be used—that of fire breaking out—was a serious one, for if the fire communicated with the room where the matches were stored the consequences would have been alarming. Now, this door, if shut quietly and deliberately, could hurt no one, and if the man had looked to see how the door shut there would have been no chance of danger. But then the door was intended to be used on the occasion of a sudden fire, and on such occasions people act very hurriedly in order to prevent the evil. Therefore the defenders were bound to see and believe that the door could be safely shut in a great hurry without looking to see what the consequences of shutting would be.
There is this further fact, that a very slight alteration would have made the door secure, and therefore I am compelled to the conclusion that the defenders did not use all reasonable precautions for making the door safe, looking to the circumstances that people would require to shut this door in a state of hurry and alarm. I am, therefore, for affirming the judgment of the Sheriff-Substitute.
The Court affirmed the interlocutor appealed against.
Counsel for Pursuer (Respondent)— Rhind— Watt. Agent— Andrew Urquhart, S.S.C.
Counsel for Defenders (Appellants) — J. P. B. Robertson— Ure. Agent— Lindsay Mackersy, W.S.
