226 / 736
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
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