Betts v Whittingslowe

[1945] HCA 31

Cons

Cons

Ben/ieii v

Batiste v State

' 32] 2 QdRueensland

Muusterof

Comnr

luniry

are

71 C.L.R.]OF AUSTRALIA.

637

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

BETTS . .

Appellant ;

Plaintiff,

AND

WHITTIXGSLOWE

. Respondent.

Defendant,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

Industrial law—Dangerous machinery—Duty to fence—Extent of duty—Breach of

H. C. OF A.

statutory duty—Absence of evidence as to how accident occurred—Industrial Code

1945.

1920-19.36 (S'.A.) {No. 1453 of 1920 ; No. 2276 of 1936), s. 321.

Adelaide,

The plaintiff, a boy aged fourteen, was employed to operate a power press,

Sept. 25, 26;

which included a moving ram highly dangerous to the hands of an operator

unless the machine was equipped with a guard. There was a guard fencing the

Sydney,

front of the ram, and it was not possible for a j>erson operating the machine

Nov. 19.

to get his hand over or under this guard when it was down. The guard did not

Latham C.J.,

extend to the right or left side of the ram. The ram would not strike when the

Starke,

Dixon and

guard was up. The plaintiff fed metal blanks into the machine by hand, and

McTiernan JJ.

the machine stamped out half hinges from the blanks.

In order to insert a

metal blank it was necessary to raise the guard each time. While operating the machine the plaintiff’s hand was seriously injured. There was no evidence accepted by the trial judge as to how the accident happened, but to the trial judge it appeared that the least improbable explanation was that the plaintiff had put his hand around and behind the guard.

Held, that the evidence disclosed a breach of statutory duty making the accident possible, that a defence of contributory negligence was not estabhshed, and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages.

Decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia {Napier C.J.) : Betts v.

Whittingslowe, (1944) S.A.S.R. 163, reversed.

Appeal from the Supreme Court of South Australia.

Derek Charles Betts (hereinafter called “ the plaintiff ”), a boy about 14 years of age, was employed by William Thomas Whitting­ slowe (hereinafter called “ the defendant ”) to work at a power press

6.38HIGH COURT

[1945.

H. C. OF A.

in a “ factory ” within the meaning of s. 321 of the Industrial Code

1945.        1920-1936 (S.A.). This section so far as relevant provides that the

Bettsoccupier of a factory shall securely fence or safeguard all dangerous

V.           parts of the machinery therein, and that the occupier shall cause all

'\VHITTI]S(iS-

LOWE.fencing and safeguards to be constantly maintained in an efficient

state while the parts required to be fenced or safeguarded are in motion or use for the purpose of any manufacturing process. The press consisted of a power-operated ram which carried a die upon the end of an arm and which struck upon a metal plate or table with a force of twenty tons. The press was used for the purpose of stamping out, punching, cutting and…