Sowmez v Kebaberry Wholesale Ltd

Contributory negligence under section 1(1) of the Law Reform Contributory Negligence Act 1945 involves a wide, fact-sensitive discretion. The court must assess the claimant’s share of responsibility in the full context, including the defendant’s breach of statutory safety duties, instruction and supervision. A claimant may be contributorily negligent where he knowingly adopts a dangerous working method, even though the employer’s failure to provide effective safeguards remains the fundamental cause of the accident. The proper reduction depends on the relative responsibility of the parties.

The claimant suffered the amputation of his right arm while cleaning a meat-mixing machine operated by the defendant. Primary liability was admitted, and the trial was confined to contributory negligence. The defendant contended that the claimant had deliberately overridden the machine’s interlock and cleaned it while moving. The court assessed the evidence concerning the defendant’s knowledge and tolerance of that practice, the claimant’s training, and the danger created when the machine automatically increased speed. The central issue was the appropriate reduction, if any, under section 1(1) of the Law Reform Contributory Negligence Act 1945.

1. Primary liability admitted. The defendant had failed over a substantial period to ensure effective operation of the interlock, and had failed adequately to instruct and supervise the claimant. The employer therefore bore the preponderance of responsibility for the accident.
2. Under section 1(1) of the Law Reform Contributory Negligence Act 1945, contributory negligence does not defeat the claim. The court has a wide discretion to reduce damages to the extent that is just and equitable, having regard to the claimant’s share in responsibility. The factual context, including the employer’s safety failures, is highly relevant.
3. The claimant knew that the interlock existed to prevent access to moving parts. He had originally been instructed to clean the machine while stationary and knew that the mixing arm would eventually speed up. Although he forgot or misjudged the timing of that change, his decision to clean the machine while it was operating involved a failure to take reasonable care for his own safety.
4. The employer’s conduct materially reduced the claimant’s responsibility. The unsafe practice had been allowed to develop over months, and the employer effectively turned a blind eye to it. The claimant’s contribution was therefore assessed at 20 per cent.
5. The claim was not defeated; damages were reduced by 20 per cent.