The Gazette 1967/71

Statute of Limitations, 1957 in an action for claiming damages for negligence, including dama ges in respect of personel injuries the limitation period is three years. Part II of the Statute which includes Section 11 is subject to the provisions of Part III of the Statute which provide for an extension of the period of limitation in the case of disability. Section 49 in Part 3 provides that the plantiff if he can prove that he was not at the time when the right of action accrued to him in the custody of the parent, is entitled to an extension. In this particular case at the time when cause of action accrued, that is when the injury occured, the plantiff was in a hospital. The plantiff's father was himself detained in another hospital. The case turned as to whether the child was in the custody of a parent. The Court held that when the child was brought to Fairyhill Hospital he was in the custody, certainly, of the mother, if not both parents. The child was detained in the hospital at the mother's voluntary wish and could have been taken back at any time. The hospital authority was treating the child but the residuum of the rights and powers of the parents to control care for and protect the child remained intact. The mother had not accordingly divested herself of the custody of the infant within the meaning of the Section. Accordingly in this case the in fant plantiff has not discharged the onus on him of proving that he was not in the custody of the parent when the action was accrued. Appeal dismissed. (Currie v. Fairyhill Hospital. Supreme Court. O'Dalley C. J., Walsh J., Fitzgerald J. [19/7/69]). Negligence, Sky Larking The plantiff was an apprentice mechanic in the defendant's Garage. A fellow worker placed a compressor air pipe in the back of the plantiff's trousers, causing an amount of compressed air under enormous pressure to pass into the plan- tiff's body, thereby causing him injury. The plan- tiff worked under the fellow worker who caused him the injury, he being a qualified mechanic and in charge of teaching the apprentice his job. The defendant or his son looked after the running of the garage. The plantiff alledged against the defendant that he was negligent in that what happened was due to lack of super vision on the part of the defendant and his failure to provide persons competent to supervise. It was held that the act complained of was an act of larking. There was no evidence of such 82

offer. In their recent circular they announced that they have altered their memorandum and articles to confine their services to solicitors and they have offered to contribute a sum of £1 Is. to the fund of the Solicitors' Benevolent Assoc. for each order received from a solicitor. We are in formed by the Solicitors' Benevolent Association that this offer was not made with their knowledge or approval. The Society now offers a fairly wide range of services to members for the convenience of the profession and its clients including the photocopying service, standard forms of condi tions of sale and contract, and other services in cluding the latest addition the Company Forma tion Service. It is hoped that the range of these services will be extended as part of a general pro gramme which has been initiated by the Council. The aim of the Council is to expand this side of the Society's work in contrast to its purely statutory and regulatory functions as a professional body and the extent to which this effort will be successful will depend upon the support received from members. SOME RECENT IRISH DECISIONS Statute of Limitations, Infant The infant plantiff in this case was admitted to Fairyhill Hospital on the 2nd June, 1957. In November, 1957 his mother received a message telling her to call on the following Sunday to take the child home. On the next day however, she received a message that the child had been re moved to Harcourt Street Hospital. When she saw the child he had a bump on the left side of his forehead and was black under the left eye. The explanation given was that the child had got drowsy and had fallen out of his cot. The child developed meningitis and remained 'for a year or more in Cherry Orchard Hospital and was later removed for convalescence to a convalescent home. As a result of the meningitis the child be came mentally retarded. It was subsequently learned that the injury had occured when the child had been brought to the bathroom toilet and had fallen off, sustaining the bruise. The child eventually returned home in 1964 and proceed ings were commenced. At a trial before Mr. Justice Muraghan, the case was dismissed on its merits. On appeal the respondents relied on the Statute of Limitations, 1957. The child was injured in November, 1957 and the proceedings were not commenced until 30th April, 1964, more than six years after the accident. Under the provisions of section 11, (2) (b) of the