The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by an agricultural contractor whose harvester made contact with overhead electricity wires while he was harvesting silage in a field. It found the Electricity Supply Board (ESB) 75% responsible for the accident and held that the contractor was 25% contributorily negligent. The case was remitted to the High Court for assessment of damages; the Supreme Court did not assess the injuries or damages.
The accident occurred on 29 August 1998 at a field in Castleconnell, County Limerick. The contractor said the harvester’s chute arced against the wires, producing a loud bang and a blaze. He had passed beneath the wires earlier that day and had worked in the field with a similar machine in previous years.
The High Court had dismissed his claim, finding he had not established that ESB negligence probably caused the accident. On appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether the evidence supported a finding of negligence. The judgment noted that the ESB’s internal documentation indicated a normal height of 15 feet for this kind of line, while evidence put the machine’s working height at about 13 feet. The 15-foot figure was not a statutory requirement, but the ESB had an ordinary duty to keep lines at a reasonable height so normal farm machinery could pass safely.
The ESB called no employees to give evidence. Its engineer, who was not an electrical engineer, could not give evidence about the field’s slope and had not visited it. The Supreme Court accepted the contractor’s engineer’s evidence that the field was relatively level, with only minor slopes. It concluded the contractor had made a sufficient prima facie case that the lines were not at a reasonable height. The court said the ESB was entitled not to call evidence, but had to bear the consequences of that choice when the evidence was assessed.
The court rejected several criticisms of the contractor’s precautions, including suggestions that he should have used a measuring device, an insulated pole or a paid observer. It did, however, accept that he should have watched the chute as he approached the wires, even though his previous experience gave him reason to believe he could pass beneath them safely. On that basis, it apportioned responsibility 75% to the ESB and 25% to the contractor.
The first defendant, John Ryan, had been joined because the contractor said Ryan told him he had previously reported low wires to the ESB. Ryan later admitted he had not made such a report, and an arrangement was made for the ESB to be the only defendant. The judgment addressed liability and apportionment; it left the assessment of damages to the High Court.