The Gazette 1967/71

Court apportioned negligence between the parties on the basis of 85% of the fault being the defen dants and 15% being the plantiffs. The defendants appealed. The Supreme held that the plantiff was one of a class of persons, namely local boys who frequent the premises, which the defendants ought to have in mind. The owners of these objects ought reasonably to have foreseen that the at traction of these objects to boys might be sufficient to tempt them to steal some. When the danger is reasonably foreseable the duty to take care to avoid injury to those who are proximate when ';heir proximity is shown is not abrogated because the other party is a trespasser. Appeal dismissed. (Supreme Court. Walsh J. Bush J. 19/7/68). Town Planning, Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963. Draft Plan. The local authority prepared a draft plan and in accordance with the terms of Clause (b) of sub- Section (1) of Section 21 of the Act they notified this fact in Iris Oifigiuil and in the Wicklow People. The plantiff objected. A month later the Council passed a resolution which purported to make a development plan for Bray which con tained, instead of the objective objected to a new and different provision. The resolution referred to the draft development plan approved earlier by the Council as having been amended. It was held that the Council were not en- powered to adopt the plan which embodied a major variation of the draft of their proposals published under Section 21 without affording in terested parties the same rights as they would have upon the publication of the original plans. Sections 19, 20, 21, 22 of the Act considered. (Anne Theresa Finn v. The Bray Urban Dis trict Council 8th December, 1967. Butler J.). TWELFTH GENERAL MEETING OF THE I.B.A. The following resolution was received by the Council from the International Bar Association New York The following resolution of appreciation to the Irish hosts was passed : The officers, delegates, conferees and guests present at the Twelfth Conference of the Inter national Bar Association in Dublin, Ireland, take this means to express officially and collectively their deep and earnest appreciation for the gracious hospitality and warm friendship which has been showered upon us by the members of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland and of the S3

larking having previously been engaged in by the employee or by any other particular employees on any prior occasion. The act, though clearly unauthorised, was of such a momentary nature that it could not have been prevented by any ordinary reasonable system of supervision. On the second ground, that the employee who committed the act was a supervisor and that the defendant was negligent in failing to employ competent workmen, there v/as no evidence to show that this employee was incompetent, though he had showed himself to be irresponsible. Appeal dismissed. Walker v. McCormack. The Supreme Court, Fitzgerald J., Walsh J. 12/12/68). Negligence, Infant, Reasonable Forseeability The defendants maintained an abbatoir; the doors were habitually opened during the working day and it was not unusual for boys to go into the premises without objection. The plantiff fre quently attended at the abbatoir and on several occasions removed detenators which were used in the operation of humane killers. He exploded these detenators in various places. One detenator failed to explode and he picked it up wnen it exploded, causing severe injuries which resulted in the subsequent removal of his right eye. On the day in question his sole purpose in visiting the abbatoir was not to watch the men at work but simply to steal the detenators. The plantiff sued the defendants for negligence alledging that they knew or ought to know that young boys including the plantiff had access to the premises and in fact resorted there from time to time, but that they took no steps to keep the humane killer and detenators in a place where they would not be accessible to the boys including the plantiff. Further it was alledged they were negligent in leaving the detenators readily avail able on the premises and that they should have foreseen that the boys, including the plantiff, would be tempted to interfere with these detena tors and that these detenators would constitute an alurement to the boys. Further no steps were taken to warn the boys of the danger. The trial Judge ruled that while the plantiff was on the defendant's premises he was a tres passer and that the only duty owed by the defendant to the plantiff as a tres passer was not to set a trap. He ruled . that there was a case to go to the jury on the question of negligence. The jury .found that the defendants were negligent and also found that the plantiff was guilty of contributry negligence and assessed damages of £4,240. The