NELSON vs. MENSAH [1976]DLHC411

Date	1976-07-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLHC411

EDUSEI J.

DR. E. N. TACKIE-OTOO FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

MISS LUCY G. BLAY FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1976]DLHC411
																																						<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" >NELSON<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>MENSAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 1 GLR 178<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
30 JULY 1976.<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">

DR. E. N. TACKIE-OTOO FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

MISS LUCY G. BLAY FOR THE DEFENDANT.<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">

EDUSEI J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.<o:p></o:p>In this
action the plaintiff is claiming damages for the injuries he has suffered in
the workshop of the defendant alleging:<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">(a) There was a statutory breach
by the defendant’s failure to securely fence his saw-machine, and<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">(b) The ground of common law
negligence.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
evidence clearly shows that the plaintiff was apprenticed to the defendant to
learn the carpentry trade in his workshop. There is no dispute the defendant’s
workshop is a factory within the meaning of the Factories, Offices and Shops
Act, 1970 (Act 328). After his apprenticeship, which lasted four years, the
plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a carpenter in the same workshop,
and he had been doing this work as a carpenter for some two years before the
accident which resulted in injury to himself. The accident happened in the morning
of 17 April 1973, and the plaintiff’s evidence as to how the accident occurred
is as follows:<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
remember that on 17 April 1973, when I went to work at the defendant’s workshop
the defendant was not there. The son of the defendant told me something and as
a result I cut the boards with the aid of the saw-machine. I put the board into
the saw-machine and as I turned the board I saw that my two fingers went into
the machine. I could not pull out my two fingers. A certain small boy who was
not working there stopped the saw-machine by switching off the electric power.
I then pulled out my fingers and saw that I had lost the ring and middle
fingers of my left hand. I also lost a part of my index finger of my left hand.
I was alone in the workshop.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The defendant
testified that he did not instruct the plaintiff that morning as to the type of
work he should do in the workshop nor did he give any such instructions through
his son, the defendant’s first witness. The defendant’s first witness confirmed
his father’s story and I accept the defendant’s statement that no instructions
were given directly or indirectly to the plaintiff to do any work in the
workshop of the defendant. My reason for the acceptance of the defendants
statement is that since he and the plaintiff lived in the same house he, the
defendant, would in all probability, have given any instructions as to the type
of work to be done by the plaintiff to him in the morning of 17 April 1973,
before he left for the hospital. He could not have given any such instructions
to his son who lived in a house different from that of the plaintiff and the
defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Be that
as it may, the plaintiff said that the accident took place whilst he was
working with the saw-machine to saw lengths of timber for the making of Coca
Cola crates for the defendant. The defendant stated that though he had a
contract to make Coca-Cola crates in his workshop the work on them had not
started when the plaintiff’s accident occurred. But the evidence of his own
son, the defendant’s first witness, belies his father’s statement. His son, the
defendant’s first witness, said: “On the day of the accident I went to the
workshop. I saw some Coca-Cola crates in the workshop. When I went there no one
was making Coca Cola crates but there were some already made.” This evidence
does not state that the plaintiff was in the workshop when the defendant’s
first witness visited the place, and it is likely that he visited there after
the accident when the plaintiff on receiving the injuries, had been rushed to
the hospital as he told the court, and as was confirmed by the defendant. The
evidence is that the plaintiff went to work on 17 April 1973, at 7.00 a.m. and
the accident happened at about 9.00 a.m. From the evidence I find that some
Coca-Cola crates had either been made before 17 April 1973, or on the morning
of 17 April 1973, before the accident occurred. I accept the evidence of the
plaintiff also that he received</main>