Protective Equipment
Cases
Rafferty v. C.A. Parsons of Ireland Ltd
[1987] ILRM 98
The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court against an order made by the High Court withdrawing his claim for negligence against the defendants from the jury on the ground that a prima facie case had not been established by the evidence. The plaintiff contended that the defendant having been informed once that the plaintiff was fit only for light work was negligent either in not providing suitable light work for him or in permitting him to return to full work.
Held by the Supreme Court (Finlay C.J. and Henchy J.; McCarthy J. dissenting): the trial judge had been correct in his finding that a prima facie case of negligence had not been established by the plaintiff.
Per Finlay C.J.: it would be a wholly artificial and unreal standard of care to hold the defendants guilty of negligence on the basis that they reacted to a single application for light work by the plaintiff by simply informing him that they had not got any and then took no further action when he voluntarily resumed and remained at his ordinary work.
Per Henchy J.: if the negligence alleged by the plaintiff had in fact been apparent in evidence at the trial it should have been pleaded so that the defendants could properly meet the case.
Per McCarthy J. dissenting: there was sufficient evidence of negligence and the respondents did not complain of inadequacy in the pleadings at the hearing of the action.