227 / 736
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
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