SOUTH INDIAN INDUSTRIALS LTD Vs. ALAMELU AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a quite hopeless appeal. The facts are that the defendants for the purposes of their own business used a method of breaking up castiron which consisted of dropping a heavy weight on pieces of iron resting on a bed of iron with the intention that these pieces should be broken into smaller pieces. The weight was dropped from a height of 35 feet with the inevitable result that pieces of iron flew about. It is common ground that they habitually flew to distances of four or five yards from the pit.

(2.) If persons choose to carry on dangerous operations of that kind, it is their duty not only to the public but to their servants to take adequate precautions that those pieces shall not cause injury. They ought to exercise, ordinary care, caution, and skill to pre vent that. The mere fact that an accident has happened is strong evidence in a case of that kind that they had not taken the ordinary care, caution, and skill required for preventing the happening of the event. They knew that these pieces were being thrown out of the pit. They put up a screen which was obviously so inadequate that, as I have said, pieces were habitually thrown out of the pit. They issued warnings to persons near, appreciating full well that they were carrying on a dangerous operation. They did not trouble themselves to issue warnings to persons at a distance, but chose to allow their workmen at a distance to go on working at the risk of being hit. It is suggested that human foresight and skill could not have discovered that pieces of iron would go to a distance of some 70 to 90 feet, at which the deceased was standing at the time of the accident. I am not prepared to accept that view. Scientific knowledge has surely by this time reached the length of being able to tell with some accuracy what the effect of dropping a weight of a certain amount from a height of 35 feet upon pieces of iron will be and to what distances pieces of iron will or may be sent. I am quite satisfied that the learned Judge was right in holding that sufficient care was not taken and that, therefore, the defendants were guilty of negligence.

(3.) It has been suggested by the defendants Engineer and Manager of the factory that no further precautions have been taken since the accident. I hope that this evidence is not true, because that such a thing should have happened as happened in this case and that they should continue the operation without taking further precaution against the recurrence of such accident is, to my mind, negligence of the grossest kind.