FIBRE BAG MANUFACTURING CO. vs. SARPONG [1967]DLCA1498

Date	1967-11-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1967]DLCA1498

AZU CRABBE JA

APALOO JA

LASSEY J.A.

AKYEA-DJAMSON FOR THE APPELLANTS.

BOAKYE FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1967]DLCA1498
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >FIBRE BAG MANUFACTURING CO. <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>SARPONG <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>[1967] GLR 657<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
27 NOVEMBER
1967.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

AKYEA-DJAMSON FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

AZU CRABBE, APALOO AND LASSEY JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AZU CRABBE J.A.<o:p></o:p>On or
about 10 march 1964, the respondent, (hereinafter referred to as the
plaintiff), who was employed as a cleaner by the appellants (hereinafter called
the defendants), was injured while cleaning a revolving or rotatory machine at
the defendant’s factory in Kumasi. The medical evidence for the plaintiff
showed that the plaintiff had a severe compound fracture (crash injury) of the
right hand, amounting virtually to traumatic amputation of the right hand above
the level of the wrist joint. This injury necessitated surgical amputation of
the right hand above the level of the wrist joint.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There
were also lacerated wounds involving the index and the middle fingers of the
left hand which had been permanently deformed, and this would interfere with
his capacity to grip objects or things. Permanent disability was estimated by
the medical witness at 45 per cent plus ten per cent disability due to the
injury to the left hand—a total of 55 per cent permanent incapacity.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff’s action against the defendants was for damages for breach of common
law and statutory duty to provide a safe system of work at the defendants’
factory whereby, the plaintiff suffered the injuries described above whilst
cleaning a power-operated and weaving machine at the factory. The plaintiff alleged
that the machine was a dangerous machine. The defendants denied that the
machine was dangerous, but whilst not denying that the plaintiff suffered injuries,
they put the plaintiff to strict proof of the extent of the injuries sustained
by him. The defendants further averred that the plaintiff was himself
negligent, or alternatively that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory
negligence.<o:p></o:p>The
issues settled and agreed to be tried were:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(i) Whether or not the defendants
were in breach of the common law duty of providing a safe system of work for
the plaintiff;<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(ii) Whether or not the
defendants were negligent for not taking adequate precautions for the safety of
the plaintiff while engaged on the said work;<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(iii) Whether or not the
plaintiff contributed to the said accident by his negligence;<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(iv) Whether or not the
defendants were in breach of statutory duties as imposed by sections 20, 21 and
22 of the Factories Ordinance, 1952 (No. 33 of 1952).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
principle, there seems to be no distinction between actions for common law
negligence and actions for breach of statutory duty, for a pursuer or plaintiff
must prove not only negligence or breach of duty, but that the fault of the
defendant caused or substantially contributed to his injury. If I may quote the
words of Lord Tucker in Bonnington Castings Ltd. v. Wardlaw [1956] A.C. 613 at
pp. 624-625, H.L.:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“No
distinction can be drawn between actions for common law negligence and actions
for breach of statutory duty in this respect. In both the plaintiff or pursuer
must prove (a) breach of duty and (b) that such breach caused the injury
complained of. (See Wakelin v. London &amp; South Western Railway Co. ((1886)
12 App.Cas. 41) and caswell v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. [1940]
A.C. 152). In each case it will depend upon the particular facts proved and the
proper inferences to be drawn theref</main>