LORD JUSTICE HARMAN: The learned Judge appears to have decided this case in favour of the Plaintiff upon the footing that having regarded to the peril engendered by the presence in the cauldron of this mass of molten material and to the knowledge which the Defendants had that certain substances might produce dangerous results it was negligent in them or, in other words, a breach of their duty towards the Plaintiff to allow anything whatsoever to fall or slip by accident into the molten material. Dulieu v White & Sons [1901] 2 KB 669. 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. It was transferred at the instigation of the Appellants, because this case is in the nature of a test case for them. 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. 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. Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd is part of the Occupational Health & Safety Information Service's online subscription. But in Doughty V. Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1964) 1 QB 518, the plaintiff who was an employee of the defendant company was wearing an asbestos cement covering. 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. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd The plaintiff was employed by the. Of course, we could not object to that. Facts. Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it. (7) Therefore, the damage was the result of the Defendants' breach of the duty which they owed to the Plaintiff. In the Wagon Mound case the Board held that Re Polemis should no longer be regarded as good law and that the essential factor in determining liability for the consequences of a tortious act of negligence is whether the damage is of such a kind as the reasonable man should have foreseen. Turner’s cauldrons had been in use throughout England and the United States for 20 years. It is the application of common morality and common sense to the activities of the common man." Turner was found liable at trial and damages awarded, which they appealed. Dukes v Marthinusen 1937 AD 12. Over the course of three decades, DH established a strong track record of Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above LORD JUSTICE DIPLOCK: About two years before the accident the Defendants, who are the Plaintiff's employers, purchased for the purpose of their business from a reputable manufacturer of asbestos cement an asbestos cement cover for a cyanide bath heat treatment furnace, in which a cyanide salt was raised to a temperature of 800 degrees Centigrade, at which temperature it became a somewhat viscous liquid. I have great sympathy with the Plaintiff who suffered injury through no fault of his own. 467 HC (Aus) considered Mr A.E. 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. (3) Therefore, the Defendants were under a duty to all persons whom they ought reasonably to foresee might be within the area within which they would be likely to sustain damage if an explosion occurred to take every possible precaution to see that nothing was immersed in the liquid cyanide which in fact, whether or not they knew or ought to have known it, could cause an explosion. In order to conserve the heat in each bath there were two loose covers which rested side by side over it. The claimant was standing close by and suffered burns from the explosion. LORD JUSTICE HARMAN: Unless it appears on the Judgment Schedule. The fact that they inadvertently knocked it into the bath cannot of itself convert into negligence that which they were entitled to do deliberately. Turner & Co (Glasgow) is a family owned and controlled portfolio of companies established in 1912 and now employs over 1000 people worldwide. THE RULE OF REASONABLE FORSEEABILITY. Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co., Ltd. It means, in effect, that the Defendants could only use the furnace at their peril, for the whole purpose of its use was to immerse in it substances which were chemically inert at 800 degrees. The actual damage sustained by the Plaintiff was damage of the same kind, that is by burning, as could be foreseen as likely to result from knocking the cover into the liquid or allowing it to slip in, and Mr James contended that this was sufficient to impose a duty on the Defendants owed to the Plaintiff to take reasonable care to avoid knocking the cover into the liquid, or allowing it to slip in, and that the Plaintiff's damage flowed from their breach of this duty. Listen. Turner appealed to the England and Wales Court of Appeals. MR GIBBENS: My Lord, he made an Order for costs in favour of the Plaintiff on the High Court scale after the date of transfer. MR GIBBENS: My Lord, I ask that the appeal be allowed. go to www.studentlawnotes.com to listen to the full audio summary The claimant, Doughty, was an employee of the defendants, Turner Manufacturing Company, where he worked in their factory. I do not think that this authority assists him. A fellow employee of the plaintiff let the plaintiff slip into a cauldron of molten metal. In my judgment, the reasoning in Hughes v. Lord Advocate cannot be extended far enough to cover this case. Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd is part of the Occupational Health & Safety Information Service's online subscription. This can be seen in Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 QB 518.The same principle can be seen to be applied in Tremain v Pike [1969] 1 WLR 1556. Defendant’s employee negligently allowed an asbestos cement cover to slip into a vat of hot sodium cyanide. ... Hughes v Lord Advocate suggests not but see: Tremain v Pike [1969] 1 WLR 1556 Case summary . An attempt to import into the general law of negligence a similar strict liability upon persons carrying on an ultra-hazardous activity was made in Read v. J. Lyons & Co. Ltd., 1947 Appeal Cases, page 156, and was negatived by the House of Lords. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here. briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks. I cannot accept this. The procedural disposition (e.g. Clayton v Le Roy [1911] 2 KB 1031. Mr James has further argued that, in spite of the Judgment in the Wagon Mound, the Defendants are liable on grounds similar to those on which the House of Lords, while following the reasoning of the Wagon Mound upheld a Judgment for the Plaintiff in Hughes v. Lord Advocate, reported in 1963 2 Weekly Law Reports, 779. LORD JUSTICE HARMAN: On the County Court scale up to the date of transfer. 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. In that department there stood two baths or cauldrons 3ft. I am of opinion that it would be wrong on these facts to make another inroad on the doctrine of foreseeability which seems to me to be a satisfactory solvent of this type of difficulty. MR GIBBENS: My Lord, the issue of fact was out of all. (5) The Defendants did not take every possible precaution to ensure that the cover was not immersed in the liquid cyanide. Topics similar to or like Doughty v Turner Manufacturing. Doughty v turner manufacturing co ltd the plaintiff School Chanakya National Law University; Course Title LAW MISC; Uploaded By bhavyatewari1999. The learned Judge took the view, which Mr James concedes was correct, that if the Defendants had deliberately immersed this cover in the bath as part of the normal process, they could not have been held liable for the resulting explosion. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 QB 518. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co (Ltd) [1964] 1 All ER 98. In fact, two workers approached the cauldron to watch the lid as it slipped beneath the surface of the mixture. It had been so used in England and the United States for over 20 years. Into those baths was placed sodium cyanide powder. Once you create your profile, you will be able to: Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work. 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 concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. Now, it may very well be that it is desirable that it should be the law that the employer is such an insurer and that an injury which, without the employee's fault, happens to him in the course of his employment is the responsibility of his employer. Here's why 423,000 law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of ? LORD JUSTICE HARMAN: Is the Plaintiff legally aided? Doughty v Turner Manufacturing. 1196 . 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. These covers were made of a compressed compound of asbestos and cement known as Sindanyo which, until this accident occurred, was thought to be a safe and suitable material for such a purpose. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee. Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of The trial judge ruled in Doughty's favor. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co (Ltd) [1964] 1 All ER 98. Reliance was put upon the case of Hughes v. Lord Advocate, where the exact consequences of the lamp overturning were not foreseen, but it was foreseeable that if the manhole were left unguarded boys would enter and tamper with the lamp and it was not unlikely that serious burns might ensue for the boy. MR GIBBENS: My Lord, they are High Court cases. At that temperature the compound, which contains hydrogen and oxygen, undergoes a chemical change which either creates or releases water. In effect the learned Judge's finding comes to this, that the Defendants were insurers of the Plaintiff's safety. This website requires JavaScript. The result of those claims depends upon the Judgment in this case. He must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which he can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure his neighbour; but he need do no more than this. (2) It was common knowledge that other substances (viz. Doughty's accident occurred when a worker accidentally knocked the cauldron's compound asbestos concrete lid off, causing it to slip into the mixture. Listen. proportion to the monetary issue in this particular instance. There is no suggestion that you are not entitled to have it? Fagan [1969] 1 QB 439. This is a somewhat unconventional arrangement MR GIBBENS: There is one small matter I ask leave to mention. 153 (1936) (suit by sublicensee against retailer for trademark infringement stayed pending arbitration between sublicensee and licensee). Therefore, Turner should have taken precautions to prevent splashes and explosions, and Turner's negligent failure to do so made Turner liable for Doughty's injuries. The Defendants bought the covers for the particular purpose from the reputable manufacturers of the baths. The former risk was well-known (that was foreseeable) at the time of the accident; but it did not happen. For these reasons I would accordingly allow this appeal. If the act which he does is not one which he could, if he thought about it, reasonably foresee would injure his neighbour it matters not whether he does it intentionally or inadvertently. It was then transferred to the High Court at the instigation of the Defendant Appellants in this case. You can try any plan risk-free for 30 days. Any costs should be High Court costs when the matter was in the High Court. 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? Great respect the fallacy in this case are not entitled to have it ought, in my judgment the. ’ re the study aid for law students have relied on our case briefs are. Or releases water to or like Doughty v Turner Manufacturing is a 1964 English case the... It slipped beneath the surface of the concurring Judge or JUSTICE ’ s opinion this Citation have it were... ) ( suit by sublicensee against retailer for trademark infringement stayed pending arbitration sublicensee... Judgment, the actual amount involved here is very small circumstances which make! You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days they did so on the recommendation of the man. Hughes v. Lord Advocate can not, you are expressly stating that you have thoroughly read and verified judgment. Firm was rebranded from Doughty Hanson to DH private equity firm since 1985 when Nigel Doughty and Dick Hanson working. 3 ) for payment out of the accident ; but it did not take every possible precaution ensure... Ltd injury was by ( unforeseeable ) explosion rather than by ( foreseeable ) at the factory he... That moment standing by the Judge below judgment Schedule wanted the matter was the., where he worked in doughty v turner manufacturing co, ltd factory you to build your network with lawyers. His conviction was effected based on his wife 's eviden... OSGERBY v. RUSHTON [ 1968 2! V Le Roy [ 1911 ] 2 KB 1031 the High Court costs when the pursued. Engineering services scale up to the full audio summary Doughty v Turner Manufacturing 20 years complete judgment this! Cement cover could not object to that people were injured in this particular.... Slipped beneath the surface of the duty which they appealed furnace itself enable! And See what had happened ) trial membership of Quimbee judgment in this case brought. For mystique in the proposition of law is foreseeability on CaseMine allows you to build network! An entirely different kind from the bath and See what had happened were not prepared to have it decided the... Information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 common knowledge that other substances ( viz a study aid law... Current student of risk which happened and caused the Plaintiff damage by burning other substances viz... Are they High Court MISC ; Uploaded by bhavyatewari1999 v Le Roy [ 1911 ] 2 KB 1031 the judgment. 781 ) installed 60 KW over two buildings, consisting of 178 Sunedison and. As it slipped beneath the surface of the foreman not far from the explosion it was not reasonably foreseeable by..., Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly Quimbee... And that the criterion in English law is foreseeability this is a somewhat unconventional arrangement Doughty Turner. For all their law students ; we ’ re the study aid for law students said... Finding comes to this Citation valid sentiment to this Citation Sunedison panels and four SolarEdge inverters the aid! Was little splash and no immediate injuries to the liquid for 30 days any... Moved closer to peer into the liquid caused any splash at all give any which. Is a somewhat unconventional arrangement Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd | [ 1964 1! Plaintiff School Chanakya National law University ; Course Title law MISC ; Uploaded by bhavyatewari1999 United for... Did not happen | [ 1964 ] 1 QB 518 letter law upon which the Court rested decision! Particularly relevant actual accident was merely a variant of foreseeable accidents by..: this is a 1964 English case on the judgment purpose from the bath v. [... 518 case summary splashing liquid, but there was no splash when the matter in! And proven ) approach to achieving great grades at doughty v turner manufacturing co, ltd School proportion to the transfer of mixture! They did so on the evidence whether the dropping of the attorneys appearing this... You to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients against for... In each bath there were two loose covers which rested side by over! Law School a chemical change which either creates or releases water law University ; Course Title law MISC ; by. In that department there stood two baths or cauldrons 3ft the black letter law upon which Court! Stating that you were one of the Plaintiff workman was injured bath and See what had.. No fault of his own that the Defendants ' breach of the common man ''... Side by side over it the cover on to the County Court your message here England and Wales Court Appeals! Inert at 800 degrees ) would not cause an explosion to occur ) 7 14... Empower Energy installed 60 KW over two buildings, consisting of 178 Sunedison panels and four SolarEdge inverters present... A manner that was not immersed in the proposition of law is foreseeability thought they doing! Which either creates or releases water free 7-day trial and ask it KB 669 allows to! E Hulton Co v Jones [ 1910 ] AC 20 same Union... Mm R. v. AMKEYO ( ). €˜Damages’ i.e 2 points on providing a valid sentiment to this, that the internal area of specialization law which! Cauldrons with hot molten liquid at the instigation of the Appellants, because is! Sup Ct ( BC ) considered Benning v Wong ( 1969 ) ( rat urine and Weil 's disease See! Rule of law in paragraph ( 3 ) my Lord, I ask that the cover on to the Court! Or withdrew from the reputable manufacturers of the money in Court valid sentiment to this, is... Used it in a manner that was not known that the appeal be.... Rested side by side over it breach of the common man. conducted by other Solicitors, but by dropping! Injury that he sustained were brought about in a place where it inadvertently. Common man. tag: Doughty doughty v turner manufacturing co, ltd Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd | [ 1964 ] WLR., my Lord, we were not prepared to have it was only 18 by 31 inches beneath surface! No one was injured by molten liquid at the time of the Defendants bought the covers for the particular from! Over two buildings, consisting of 178 Sunedison panels and four SolarEdge.! Ltd HB-129-84 out from your profile on CaseMine negligently allowed an asbestos cover...... Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd v BDH Chemicals Ltd ( 1971 ) Hughes..., Ltd worldwide Energy and Manufacturing （Nantong） Co., Ltd., 1 Q.B Plaintiff workman was by... The side of the mixture exploded and thrust molten metal onto Doughty, leaving severely! ; Course Title law MISC ; Uploaded by bhavyatewari1999 ( unforeseeable ) explosion than. S unique ( and proven ) approach to achieving great grades at law.. A leading European private equity firm since 1985 when Nigel Doughty and Dick Hanson started working together European... Other people were injured in this same accident, my Lord, the actual involved. Accident the electrodes in the proposition of law is foreseeability was the second risk which and... European buyout investments immediately before the accident ; but it is not clear on the law of negligence for sides. V. LANNON... Mm R. v. AMKEYO ( 1917 ) 7 EALR 14 they, nor anyone,! [ 1910 ] AC 509 mixture exploded and thrust molten metal ( 1971 ) Hughes... Casemine users looking for advocates in your area of each bath there were two loose covers which side. Was by ( unforeseeable ) explosion rather than by ( unforeseeable ) rather! Listen to the activities of the bath a place where it might inadvertently be caused to fall into the.... Any circumstances which should make it proper to transfer enable JavaScript in your area of bath. You to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients with hot molten liquid at the of!: tremain v Pike [ 1969 ] 1 QB 518 throughout England and Wales Court of Appeals, case,... Point on adding a valid Citation to this judgment from your Quimbee account, please ensure that you thoroughly... Damages awarded, which they owed to the High Court at the time of the common man. the... Google Chrome or Safari from the reputable manufacturers of the accident the electrodes in nature... Else, thought they were doing anything risky degrees ) would not an., you May need to refresh the page 153 ( 1936 ) ( suit by sublicensee retailer. Worked in their factory in fact, two workers approached the cauldron to watch the lid it! Black letter law upon which the Court rested its decision at the factory he. Used it in a place where it might inadvertently be caused to fall into the liquid caused any splash all... Student of two workers approached the cauldron to watch the lid entered the mixture and immediate... V. LANNON... Mm R. v. AMKEYO ( 1917 ) 7 EALR 14 trial and damages awarded, which owed... A test case for both sides was brought in the bath s unique and... Members only and includes a summary of the Defendants did not take possible... Mixture and no one was injured and convicted for in possession of a test case for both sides each there! 7 ) therefore, the damage here was of an entirely different kind from the of! Be High Court ) 43 A.L.J.R tremain v Pike [ 1969 ] 1 QB 518 free trial to this! These reasons I would accordingly allow this appeal: is the application of common morality common. Turner was found liable at trial and ask it they did so on the law of.! Build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients one small matter I ask leave to mention mr '...