The High Court dismissed a prisoner’s claim against the Governor of Wheatfield Prison, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General over an accident that amputated four fingers on his left hand. The court found that he had not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the accident happened in the way he described.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Bernard J Barton on 15 August 2017, concerns an accident on 27 November 2008 in Wheatfield’s metalwork workshop. The prisoner was injured while a GEKA Minicrop machine’s cropping blades were operating. The machine’s removable guide-guard had been taken off, leaving the blades accessible. The court found that the guard was not removed by the prisoner, but did not establish who removed it.
The prisoner said he was cutting steel bar for his welding course when his hand entered the machine and the blade came down. He said the guide-guard and a stop bar were absent, and denied being told the machine was out of order. Prison staff said another bar had jammed shortly beforehand, that an instructor dealt with it and warned prisoners nearby not to use the machine, and that an officer was told to ensure nobody used it. The judge found the prisoner had received training on the machine and was entitled to use it without seeking permission, but was not satisfied he had received a warning not to approach it that day.
The court found that the instructor and officer knew other prisoners might not have heard the warning. The officer left the machine unattended while going to the workshop store, leaving the work area unsupervised. The judge found that if the officer had stayed near the machine, the accident almost certainly would not have happened. The court also found that the prison had failed to use the machine’s padlockable lockout device when the guide-guard was removed. It identified breaches of statutory duties concerning workshop safety and machine guarding if the accident had happened as the prisoner alleged.
However, the judge rejected key parts of the prisoner’s account. Based on the injury to his glove, engineering evidence and other circumstances, the court found his hand was palm-up and not resting on a steel bar when the blade descended. It also found the stop bar was in place at the time. The judge did not find that the prisoner acted deliberately or decide exactly what he was doing when the machine operated.
The judgment said the prisoner had suffered very serious and permanent physical and psychological injuries. Because he had not proved how the accident occurred, the court did not assess damages and dismissed his claim. It said that, had damages been considered, it would have found contributory negligence and breach of statutory duty by the prisoner, with a heavy apportionment of fault.