Redgrave's Factories Acts / by Alexander Redgrave.

  • United Kingdom
Date:
1931
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Redgrave's Factories Acts / by Alexander Redgrave. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    63/842 page 29
    fenced, whereas the particular kinds of machinery described in (a) and (b) must be fenced in any case; and therefore it is no defence to say that such machinery is safe without fencing. See Doel v. Sheppard (1856), 5 El. & Bl. 856; 25 L. J. Q. B. 124; 4 W. RB. 232; 2 Jur. (N.s.) 218. In Shaxby v. A. W. Smith & Co., [1924] K. B., October 24th (unreported), see 92 J. P. 505, it was held that an offence was committed when an unfenced power press was used, even if tongs had been provided for the workers’ use and warnings given and notices affixed that the press must not be fed without use of the tongs. (f) Mill Gearing.—See definition, s. 156, p. 228. Every part of the mill gearing must be securely fenced unless it falls within the proviso allowed by the section. Consequently, ali mill gearing is deemed to be dangerous. In Butler v. Glacier Metal Co., Limited., [1924] K. B. (unreported), see 93 J. P. 504, it was held that where a workman—not employed by the occupier but working in the factory—had placed a ladder so as to obtain access to overhead shafting, and was injured by the shafting, that the only question for the justices to consider was not who was the man’s employer, but whether the mill gearing was in such a position as to be equally safe to every person employed or working in the factory as it would be if it had been securely fenced. In Atkinson v. L. & N. H. Rly. Co. (1925), 42 T. L. R. 79; 23 L. G. R. 702; W. N. 267, it was held that the enactment applies to shafting 13 feet from the floor when such shafting was approached by a workman using a ladder for the purpose of replacing a belt. In Wesley Turner v. Charles Venables & Co., [1927] K. B. (un- reported), see 92 J. P. 520, it was held that where an occupier had railed off certain shafting, and into which railed-off portion it was the duty of a workman to go for oiling or adjusting the machinery, an offence had been committed. Further, in Thomas v. Thomas Bolton & Son, Lamited, 44 'T. L. RB. 640; 1389 L. T. 397; 92 J. P. 147, it was held that an offence had been committed where a guard was left off coupling gears in a rolling mill, in consequence of which a worker was killed. The occupier had provided guards for all such gears, had employed a manager to supervise the department, and had exhibited notices requiring guards to be used. ‘The Court held that as the occupiers had not availed themselves of the course open to them under s. 141 to produce the person blameworthy before the Court, and as the accident was due to the failure at the critical time to have this dangerous machinery securely fenced, it mattered not that some- where upon the premises there was a guard which had been removed. Similar decisions have been given by the Divisional Court in a number of unreported cases in connection with unfenced mill gearing. It has therefore been clearly laid down that an offence is committed whenever any person employed, or working in a factory, approaches unfenced mill gearing for any purpose what- ever when the mill gearing is in motion. Consequently, no such alternatives as the giving of instructions or the affixing of notices can relieve the occupier of his obligation to provide efficient fencing
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3