The Gazette 1967/71

Plaintiff cannot recover for fall on old staircase in castle

(1) To cover the nuisance caused by the noise from Plaintiff and his wife seek full injunction :— motor cars and dancers departing from a dancehall and speaking loudly in the early hours of the morning. This was granted on the ground that the noise of the motor cars alone was calculated to awaken the sleep of normal people. (2) To prevent objectionable and loud noises from escaping from the Las Vegas Dance Hall, Templemore, Co. Tipperary, which was an intolerable nuisance. This hall should have been built in a manner in which the noise would have been contained. The nuisance was aggravated by the defendant's arrogant and persistent disregard of plaintiff's complaints, and by the fact that defendant had done .nothing to abate the nuisance. The rhythmic noise of the band was undoubtedly capable of causing irritation, which deliberately gained in in tensity. Noises which pass unnoticed in daylight mav cause considerable annoyance at night. Accordingly, as this noise was continuing wantonly to invade the plain tiff's house, it will have to be abated. Teevan J. accordingly granted a continuing injunction to the plaintiff. [Mullins v Hynes—unreported—Teevan J.—24 February 1969.] (Bio-Chemicals) Ltd. v Thompson; Privy Council; The Times; 20 January 1971. Where in a matrimonial case justices wish to dismiss a complaint at the of the complainant's case, they must first invite complainant or his repreentative to address the court. [Mayes v Mayes—Probate Divorce and Admiralty Division— The Times— 15 January 1971.] recovers £1,846 damages and costs for personal injuries caused by the driving of a motor car in Dame Street, Dublin in July 1954—Judgment un satisfied—Plaintiff applies to High Court for leave to execute judgment against an insurance company under Section 78 of the Road Traffic Act 1933—Insurance policy limited use of car to defendant's business and for social, domestic and pleasure purposes—Murnaghan J. refused the application on the ground that burden of proof of establishing that the car was being used within the limitations of use at the time of the accident rested on the claimant—The defendant appeals to the Supreme Court — First case under Section 78 to come before appellate Court—Lavery J., giving judgment, held that universal cover is not given with exceptions which the grantor of the indemnity must establish, but only if the cover is given in the Heht of the actual covering words in the policy. The claimant must also establish 199 Practice and Procedure See Distillers ROAD TRAFFIC ACT Leave to Execute against Insurance Company Plaintiff

In July 1965, the public on payment of 2/6 each, was admitted to the interior of Slane Castle, Co. Meath: the proceeds were to be divided evently between the Math Hunt and the Conquer Cancer Campaign. An effort was made to control admission by division into parties of 30 persons each; each party was conducted through the various parts of .the castle, nad this included the ascent of the main staircase, which was 180 years old. During the course of the visit, a portion of the second flight of this staircase gave way while about 30 persons were using it causing injury to the plaintiff and other persons. The plaintiff contended she was an invitee to whom the defendants owed a duty of care. This staircase had previously carried up to 40 persons at one time, yet some, of the evidence established that the stairs could not cater for this number in safety. But there was no agreement as to how this structural failure had occurred : briefly the evidence for the plaintiff was that the failure was due to the inadequacy and unsuit- ability of the limestone material used in the 17 steps with the result that the presence of a number of people on any one step created the danger of breaking the step : the step had broken by reason of excessive tension. At the close of plaintiff's evidence, the defendants argued that the case ought to have been withdrawn from the jury, for the reason that the defendants were negligent, in view of its past history in not having inspected the staircase beforehand. Hency J. declined to do this : one could contend that the fact that there had never been an accident there before was sufficient to excuse a person from taking reasonable precautions. At the end of the case, the jury in reply to a quastion did not accept that the plaintiff was injured through want of reasonable care on the part of the proprietor to see that the stairs were reasonably safe for plaintiff. From this answer, the jury apparently acquitted the defendants from the fact that even if an inspection had taken place, the report would have justified them in organising these visits. The plaintiff had contended that the defendants had failed in their duty to see that the staircase was reason ably safe. The defendants had given evidence that large groups of people had come to the house from time to time and had used the staircase without mishap : there was nothing to alert the mind of a reasonable man to any real danger, and this could not have been discovered on inspection. The Supreme Court (O'Dalaigh C.J., Budd, Fitzgerald and McLoughlin J.J.—Walsh J. dissenting) — accordingly held that the plaintiff's appeal from the verdict of Henchy J. and- a iury finding that there was no negligence on the part of the defendants should be dismissed. [Collier v The Earl of Mount Charles and others— unreported—Supreme Court—19 December 1969.] NUISANCE Injunction granted to restrain noise in dance hall and noise from parked motor cars at night.