The Gazette 1972

UNREPORTED IRISH CASES

(Defective locking device on trailer not

inspected. Plaintiff injured when Jockey

wheels collapse. Defendants liable.)

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

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.]