THE HIGH COURT
1986 No. 5597P
BETWEEN
THOMAS ENGLISH
PLAINTIFF
AND
ANGLO IRISH MEAT COMPANY LIMITED
DEFENDANT

Judgment delivered by O'Hanlon J., the 2nd December, 1988

The Plaintiff is a young, unmarried man of 24. He was employed by the Defendants in their meat factory in Cahir in the year 1985, and while boning meat on the 23rd April of that year the boning knife held in his right hand struck the inner portion of his left arm below the elbow joint and inflicted severe injuries, in respect of which he claims damages for negligence in these proceedings.

Essentially the Plaintiff's case is that the work upon which he was engaged, applying the boning knife which was razor-sharp, with a good deal of force to the meat carcasses, was inherently dangerous and that the Defendants failed in their duty as his employers to provide him with sufficient protective equipment to guard him against the danger of injury of the type which in fact occurred.

All the witnesses in the case who had knowledge of the type of work: on which the Plaintiff was engaged, were of one mind that it is work involving a considerable risk of injury if protective clothing is not worn. The operatives wear chain mail aprons to protect their bodies against an accidental slip of the knife, and gloves of various kinds are provided to protect the left hand and arm which would normally be holding the piece of meat which is to be boned. In the Plaintiff's case he was provided with a glove which was of chain mail to above the wrist level, and to this was attached a plastic guard which extended up the arm to within a few inches of the elbow.

The cut sustained by the Plaintiff was a couple of inches below the inner part of the elbow joint, and about 1.75" above the upper rim of the plastic guard. The Plaintiff claims that other and better guards were available, providing cover for the arm to the elbow, and even extending above the elbow joint and that the Defendants should have provided such protection for him prior to the date of the accident.

The Plaintiff said that contract boners from England were employed by the Defendants prior to the accident on a regular basis when the work-load built up, and that these men wore chain mail gauntlets which extended up to the elbow. This was confirmed by the evidence of a fellow-worker, Mr. Brown. Photographs were produced to show that workers in a Clonmel meat factory wore such chain mail gauntlets extending up to and above; the elbow, and Fintan Phelan, who worked in a managerial capacity for Master Meats in the factories in Omagh and Cionmel, said that such chain mail gauntlets were used in these premises - in the case of Omagh going back to the year 1984.

For the Defendants, Michael Tynan of the Westex Company, one of the largest manufacturers of this type of protective equipment, said that the type of gauntlet worn by the Plaintiff at the time of the accident had been supplied by them and were used in 80% of the larger meat factories in Ireland,, and extensively throughout the United Kingdom and in Belgium and the Netherlands. He considered that it was the best type available, and he gave as his opinion that protective cover up to the elbow and beyond made the equipment unworkable, as it restricted the movement of the elbow joint, and if strapped on above the elbow interfered with the blood circulation in the arm.

I am satisfied from the evidence given by the witnesses on both sides of the case that there was a general recognition of the need to provide protection so far as was feasible for the left hand, wrist and arm for persons engaged as boners in the meat trade, and that in recent times there has been a constant search for the best ways of providing such protection. Two of the brochures put in evidence by the Defendants - that of the Westex Company and that of a French Company called Chainex, - both have illustrations of chain mail gauntlets of elbow length. I have come to the conclusion that such protective equipment was available and in use in the trade at the time of the accident to the Plaintiff and that had it been provided in his place of employment it would have prevented the accident :which in fact occurred. This was described as a "freak accident" by Mr. Tynan, but there had been a similar injury suffered by another worker, Willie O'Mahony, while engaged on line boning, not very long before this accident, and Mr. Tynan was aware of another similar accident which occurred in Belfast in recent times. 

Having regard to the fact that the work of the Plaintiff involved him in holding the carcase with his left hand and arm while the meat was suspended from a hook, and working on it with his right hand holding the boning knife, allowing the meat cut away from the bone to rest over his left forearm while the cutting operation continued, it seems to me that a danger existed at all times of the knife slipping or penetrating through to a point where it could injure the left forearm.

I have had regard to the legal submissions made by Mr. Hickey, based on the decision in Bradley -v- CIE, (1976) IR 217, and the earlier authorities referred to in that case, but it appears to me that the present case is clearly distinguishable from the circumstances referred to in the cases cited. I think there is sufficient evidence in the present case to indicate that there were alternative and better safeguards already in use in the industry which would have given greater protection to the workers in the Defendants' meat factory, and that the nature of the risk involved in the work demanded that as a matter of ordinary prudence and foresight as much protection as possible should have been given the hand, wrist and forearm of the person employed on the work of boning.

At the same time, while I find an element of negligence on the Defendants' part, I accept that the accident which happened was far from being one of common occurrence, and that the type of gauntlet actually supplied to the Plaintiff was adequate to guard against most of the risks involved in his work. I think the accident could not have happened without some lack of care for his own safety on the Plaintiff's part and I feel that a finding of contributory negligence must be made against him.

While I have come to the conclusion that the Defendants did not go far enough to protect their employees from danger, I accept that they were conscientious employers who mistakenly believed that the equipment they provided was adequate. On apportionment of fault as between the Plaintiff and Defendant, I find a percentage of 80% as against the Defendants and 20% against the Plaintiff.

The injuries suffered by the Plaintiff involved severance of the ulnar nerve, and division of the flexor muscles in the left forearm. Initially he was detained in hospital for only three days, then was brought back for a second operation on the 26th February, 1986. It was not possible to achieve a good result to the nerve damage and after one week in hospital the Plaintiff was discharged home in Plaster of Paris which was left on for five or six weeks.

The ultimate result was that he was left with numbness in the little and ring fingers, and the outer side of the left hand, but with- some protective sensation; he has what was described as an "ulnar claw hand" involving some distortion of the left hand and considerable wasting of the muscles. He has an adequate grip but poor function for finer movements. No improvement can be expected for the future. He did not complain of great pain or suffering at any stage of his treatment. If he continues to exercise the hand it should retain its present degree of function. He was two years out of work and when he resumed work he was put on packing work as the Manager considered he would not be physically fit for boning. He himself was anxious to get back to work as a boner, which means that he must have felt fit enough to undertake it, and from the job description given, coupled with the medical evidence of his surgeon, it appears to me that he should be able to undertake such work again in a meat factory if offered the job.
For pain and suffering to date, together with all the incapacity he has suffered as a result of the accident I propose to measure a sum of £20,000 damages, and for the future a like sum of £20,000 to take account, inter alia, of the manner in which he as been prejudiced should it become necessary for him to seek, alternative employment elsewhere.
I understand that his loss of earnings during his two years out of work comes to £14,000, and his diminution in earnings during the past year is estimated at £400. He also claims for travel expenses and under this heading I measure a sum of £1,600, giving a total under all headings of general and special damages of £56,000. This figure will be reduced by 20% having regard to the finding of contributory negligence against the Plaintiff, and this reduces the figure for damages to £44,800. I will give judgment in favour of the Plaintiff for this amount, £44,800, with costs. 

R. J.	O' HANLON