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