The High Court ruled that a John Deere Model 6810 harvester was not fit for purpose after a worker suffered severe crush injuries to his left hand while clearing a blockage. It found the machine’s rear inspection hatch was too close to the blower paddles and lacked a mechanism to prevent them moving while the hatch was open. The court ordered the suppliers to receive a complete indemnity from the manufacturer.
In a judgment delivered on 5 December 2007, Ms Justice Irvine considered contribution and indemnity proceedings brought by Thomas Wright and William Wright, agricultural contractors, against AIB Finance Leasing Limited and Geary’s Garage Limited. John Deere Limited was joined as a third party. The Wrights sought recovery of sums they had paid to settle their employee Denis Scollard’s earlier claim, along with their defence costs.
Scollard was injured on 24 June 1995 while clearing grass from the harvester’s exit chute. He had placed his hand through a rear inspection hatch into an area close to the blower paddles. The court found that the engine was idling and the clutch disengaged when he began the work; it rejected the suggestion that Wright had restarted the paddles. The precise movement that crushed Scollard’s hand could not be established with certainty. The judge found the likely cause was a combination of retained tension in the blower box, released grass and the movement of grass in the chute.
The court concluded that the injury was foreseeable because an operator working at the hatch could reach the paddles without seeing them, and the paddles could move even with the clutch disengaged. It said a locking device or a safer location for the hatch could have prevented the danger.
The Wrights had settled Scollard’s claim for €476,152, with €68,349 in costs. They also sought €51,541 in their own defence costs, plus interest. The court found the suppliers had breached contract because the harvester was not fit for purpose under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980. Although the Wrights had failed to train Scollard and had left the engine running, the judge found those failings did not cause the injury. The court therefore allowed the Wrights’ claim in full against the defendants and held that the defendants were entitled to a complete indemnity from John Deere. The judgment excerpt does not specify a separate quantified payment order.