SUPREME COURT Painter Awarded £5315 In Damages Claim

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30900, 5 November 1965, Page 7

SUPREME COURT Painter Awarded £5315 In Damages Claim

An award of £4300 general damages and £1094 special damages reduced by 5 per cent for contributory negligence—- " as made yesterday by the Supreme Court jury which tried the claim of Norman Mowbray Snowdon, aged 45, a foreman painter, made as a result of injuries suffered when he fell from an exterior staircase at the university engineering school at Ham on June 6,1961.

Snowdon fell from the staircase when one of its welded steel railings gave way as he fell, or leaned against it when painting a door at the staircase head. He fell 15ft to the ground, and suffered a broken spine.

The jury assessed the liability of John Calder, Ltd., and Flewellen am' Lipscombe, Ltd., the defendants in the action, at 50 per cent each. The reduction of Snowdon's damages by 5 per cent for his contributory negligence means that he will receive a sum of £5315 4s. Mr Justice Macarthur adjourned the case until November 11 for the entering of judgment. The jury was almost five hours in reaching its verdict on the issues. His Honour thanked the 12 jurors—10 men and two women— for their close attention to a long and important case, and excused them from further jury service for three years, if they so desire. The hearing—in which Snowdon sought £6OOO general damages, plus £1094 special damages (not agreed on) —lasted seven days. Mr B. A. Barrer argued Snowdon’s case. Messrs R. A. Young and P. G. S. Penlington conducted the case for John Calder, Ltd., and Mr R. G. Blunt for Flewellen and Lipscombe, Ltd. Issues Determined The issues put to the jury were determined as follows: (1) Was John Calder, Ltd., negligent in a manner causing or contributing to the accident in any of the following respects: (a) Failing to ensure that the rail on the staircase landing was properly fixed to the door post?—Yes.

(b) Failing to ensure that the lower rail was properly welded to the stanchion? —No. (c) Failing to warn Snowdon of any danger to which he was exposed?—Yes. (d) Failing to inspect and see that the lower rail was properly fixed to the door post?—Yes. 1 (e) Failing to inspect and see that the lower rail was properly welded to the stanchion?—Yes. (2) Was Flewellen and Lipscombe, Ltd., negligent in a manner causing or contributing to the accident in any of the following respects? (a) Failing properly to weld the lower rail to the stanchion?—Yes. (b) Failing properly to fix the lower rail to the door post?—No. (c) Failing to warn Snowdon of any danger it had created? —No. (d) Failing within a reasonable time to have the lower rail properly fixed, knowing that it was not so fixed?—No. (3) If the answer to any of the above questions is “yes,” assess general and special damages: (a) General damages—£4soo. (b) Special damages—£lo94 18s lOd (comprised of

£950 loss of wages and £144 18s lOd hospital expenses). (4) If any of the questions in (1) and (2) is “yes,” was Snowdon negligent in a manner causing or contributing to his accident by failing to ascertain whether the lower rail was sufficiently secure to prevent his falling?—Yes. (5) If so, by what proportion should damages awarded to Snowdon be reduced?—s per cent. (6) If the answer to any questions in (1) and (2) is “yes,” in what proportions should the defendants paydamages? (a) John Calder, Ltd.—so per cent. (b) Flewellen and Lipscombe, Ltd.—so per cent. Judge’s Summing-up In his summing-up, which took an hour and a half. His Honour said that the law required that a company must take reasonable care to prevent accidents which could be reasonably foreseen—the standard of care being that of a prudent and reasonable company charged with such a duty. Applying that standard, did John Calder, Ltd., and Flewellen and Lipscombe, Ltd., measure up as prudent and reasonable companies, having regard to all the circumstances?