The Gazette 1972

UNREPORTED IRISH CASES (Defective locking device on trailer not inspected. Plaintiff injured when Jockey wheels collapse. Defendants liable.)

second defandants' workmen to help him in this opera- tion. The jury found as follows : (1) That the first defendant was negligent in failing to anticipate that the trailer would be manhandled, and would thereby collapse because of its defective condition. (2) That the second defendants were negligent in failing to ascertain that the trailer was in a safe condi- tion before permitting the plaintiff to assist in man- handling it. The jury apportioned 80 per cent of the fault to the first defendant and 20 per cent to the second defendant. The first defendant appeals against this apportionment and also contends that Mr. Justice Henchy should have withdrawn the case from the jury on the ground that this defendant could not reasonably have anticipated that the trailer would be moved in the yard of the second defendant. This ground fails as there was ample evidence on which the Jury could hold that the locking device was dangerous at the time. The second defendants contended that there were no reasonable grounds upon which a jury could find them negligent. As the second defendants should have satis- fied themselves by inspection that the trailer and its locking device were in a fit condition to be manhandled, this objection fails. This was a patent defect immedi- ately apparent to anyone who took the trouble to look at it. The apportionment as such was justified, as the first defendant had created the danger initially and had failed to give any warning of it. The Supreme Court (O Dalaigh, C.J., Walsh and Fitzgerald J.J.) accordingly dismissed the appeal. [Keenan v Bergin and S. Bishop & Co.; Supreme Court; 29th October 1971.]

The first defendant, a haulage contractor, was the owner of a detachable articulated trailer drawn by a motor tractor. Once the tractor is detached from the trailer, the front end of the trailer is supported by jockey wheels containing a locking mechanism which prevents the jockey wheels from retracting; a special pulling bar can be attached to the front of the trailer, enabling persons to steer it. If the locking mechanism is not in position, there is a danger that, when the traileri s drawn forward, the assembly may collapse, and the front end of the trailer may fall to the ground and, if fully laden, could cause serious injuries to any- one nearby. The second defendants carried on business as sack manufacturers in Barrow Street, Dublin. In January 1970 Bergin, the first defendant, carried goods on the trailer in a container from the B&I Company to the premises of second defendants. The trailer was left in the yard to be unloaded, duly supported by the jockey wheels in front. The first defendant then left with his tractor. The locking mechanism was defective, but this could be observed from the side. The unloading pro- ceeded without incident; when this was completed, the second defendants decided to remove the trailer to another part of the yard to get it out of the way. This entailed the assistance of several persons, including the foreman, the plaintiff in this action, after moving some distance, the jockey wheel assembly collapsed, and severely injured the plaintiff. The second defendants were accustomed to loading and unloading of trailers and moving them subse- quently, so that there would be room in the unloading bay. The plaintiff as foreman summoned some of the

30