ISSAH vs. MIM TIMBER CO., LTD. [1979]DLHC1076

Date	1979-06-07
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1076

OWUSU-ADDO J.

MISS R. A. TAYLOR FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

LETSAH FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1979]DLHC1076
																																						<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" >ISSAH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>MIM TIMBER CO., LTD.<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 430<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:
6 JULY 1979<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">

MISS R. A. TAYLOR FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<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 1.0pt 0in">

OWUSU-ADDO J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OWUSU-ADDO J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff who was employed as a Dolmar machine operator by the defendants, a
renowned timber company, is claiming ¢40,000 damages for the injuries he
sustained in the course of his employment as a result of alleged failure of the
defendants to provide a safe system of work.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 3
October 1977, the plaintiff filed a statement of claim in this suit. The
relevant paragraphs setting out his claim which was founded on negligence are:<o:p></o:p>“(4) The
said injuries and loss and damages were occasioned to the plaintiff by reason
of a breach on the part of the defendants, their servants or agents of their
statutory duties under the Factories, Offices and Shops Act, 1970 (Act 328).
Particulars (a) Failing to provide proper supervision to enable work to be
carried out without unnecessary risk to the plaintiff. (b) Failing to provide a
safe system of work. (c) Failing to give warning in time for the plaintiff to
run away from the direction of the falling tree. <o:p></o:p>(5)
Further or in the alternative the said injuries, loss and damages were
occasioned to the plaintiff by reason of the negligence on the part of the
defendants, their servants or agents. Particulars (a) Falling to take any or
adequate precautions for the safety of the plaintiff while he was engaged upon
the said tree felling. (b) Exposing plaintiff to a risk or damages or injuries
of which they knew or ought to have known; (c) The plaintiff repeats the
particulars set out under paragraph (4) hereof as constituting a failure on the
part of the defendants to provide sufficiently safe, suitable and adequate
working system for the plaintiff to work. (d) Failure to provide a safe working
system at the said tree felling concession. A safe working system would have
been to take reasonable precautions to ensure that proper warning was given to
the plaintiff as to the direction in which the tree was falling.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff did, inter ali, give particulars of special damage, covering various
sums of money he had expended on transport, accommodation and food during his
hospitalisation at Hwidiem, Okomfo Anokye, Korle-Bu and the Accra Military
Hospitals and loss of earnings.<o:p></o:p>The
defendants on the other hand denied liability and averred in their statement of
defence that the accident was due wholly to or substantially contributed to by
the plaintiff’s negligence. In paragraph (6) thereof they averred: “6. The
defendants say that their liability to the plaintiff, if any, is covered by the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1963 (Act 174).”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
issues raised in this suit are twofold:<o:p></o:p>(1)
Whether or not the defendants were in breach of their statutory duty under the
Factories, Offices and Shops Act, 1970 (Act 328).<o:p></o:p>(2)
Whether or not the damage or loss sustained by the plaintiff was occasioned by
the negligence of the defendants.<o:p></o:p>Having
regard to the fact that the claim is founded on negligence a brief account of
the evidence relevant to the claim is necessary: The plaintiff was employed by
the defendants as a Dolmar machine operator at their sawmill at Mim in 1973. He
was in charge of a team comprising two others who assisted him in his work of
felling timber and cross-cutting them to size. Before undertaking any
tree-felling ope</main>