Judgment: 2017-07-20 · Court archive

High Court awards €281,500 after carpenter injured by unguarded saw

The court found the employer and saw manufacturer jointly and severally liable, apportioning fault two thirds to the employer and one third to the manufacturer.

High Court · [2017] IEHC 472

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Werkhuizen Landuyt N.V. (Defendant)
What

The court found the employer and saw manufacturer jointly and severally liable, apportioning fault two thirds to the employer and one third to the manufacturer.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Dundalk
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The court found that FÁS was liable in negligence and breach of statutory duty. Its risk assessment identified risks from the saw but missed the shearing hazard at the end of the platform. The judge said the obstructing trolleys were not a significant cause of the injury; the machine’s hazard caused it.

The High Court has awarded €281,500 to a carpenter who lost the tip of his left middle finger in an accident involving a sliding table saw at a training course in Dundalk.

Mr Justice Cross delivered judgment on 20 July 2017. The plaintiff, who was a trainee at FÁS, was moving the saw’s sliding table after trolleys obstructed his route. His fingers were caught by an unprotected shearing hazard beneath the table.

The court found that FÁS was liable in negligence and breach of statutory duty. Its risk assessment identified risks from the saw but missed the shearing hazard at the end of the platform. The judge said the obstructing trolleys were not a significant cause of the injury; the machine’s hazard caused it.

The manufacturer, Werkhuizen Landuyt N.V., was also liable under the Liability for Defective Products Act 1991. The court found the saw defective because the unprotected end of the table created a risk of serious finger injury. A D-shaped plate added after the accident, with the manufacturer’s agreement, neutralised the hazard. Although the saw had been certified and the court accepted it did not breach the specific European standards discussed, those matters did not defeat the product liability claim. The judge found no negligence by the manufacturer.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. It said neither defendant had identified the hidden hazard in its risk assessment, so it was unrealistic to expect him to anticipate it.

The plaintiff’s middle finger was partially amputated, and his ring finger was lacerated. The judge accepted that he could not return to carpentry and would continue to experience sensitivity and pain. The award included €40,000 for past loss of earnings, €130,000 for future loss, €27,500 for a spinal implant, €4,000 in agreed medical expenses, and general damages of €50,000 to date and €30,000 into the future.

The decree was against both defendants jointly and severally. Between themselves, the defendants were responsible in the proportions of two thirds for FÁS and one third for the manufacturer.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review