Personal injuries claim against prison should not have been dismissed after findings made of negligence

Edwards J (majority decision): Personal injuries - claim by prisoner against prison and State defendants - alleged negligence - dismissal of claim in High Court - hand caught in guillotine cutter while attending training programme - Safety and Welfare at Work Act, 2005 - the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations - affidavit of verification - contributory negligence - removal of guarding from machine - discovery - prisoner operated machine while under influence of methadone - procedural history of case - hearing of over 20 days in High Court - requirement that prisoners undertake educational and vocational courses - plaintiff instructed in safe use and operation of machine - prisoner entitled to use machine without permission - effect of methadone - prisoner did not hear warning that machine was not to be used - finding that, if officer had remained present, accident would not have occurred - whether prisoner would have disobeyed an express instructions not to use the machine - removal of 'guide guard' - allegation that backstop was missing - grounds of appeal - whether plaintiff had discharged the burden of proof - express findings of negligence made by High Court -

"[T]here seems to me to be no reason in principle why the ability to infer causation should not extend in the interests of justice to a case where an honest plaintiff is, for whatever reason, is an unreliable historian and it is otherwise possible to determine the true causa causans of his/her accident. In this context it should be recalled that the trial judge in the present case made an express finding that the plaintiff had not sought to mislead the experts or the court."
...
"I am satisfied that it was not in fact necessary, although it was desirable, for the plaintiff to have cogently explained how his left hand came to be in the path of the shearing blades. The causa causans of the accident was the fact that the plaintiff, regardless of what he was doing, was able to place his left hand in the path of the shearing blades, due to acts or omissions of the defendants found by the trial judge to have been negligent and in breach of duty (including statutory duty) owed to the plaintiff by the defendants. The evidence was that the plaintiff was permitted to operate the machine in normal circumstances. The court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff was unaware that the machine was out of order and was not to be used on that account."

Donnelly J (concurring): Whether prisoner had discharged burden of proof - injury arising through the proven negligence of others.

"There is, in short, no reason in principle why the ability to infer causation should not extend, in the interests of justice, to a case where an honest plaintiff is, for whatever reason, an unreliable historian and it is otherwise possible to determine the true, proximate cause of the accident."

"In respect of the permission to operate the machine, there was an express statement by the trial judge (at para. 134) that if the Prison Officer had remained at or near the machine, it was probable to the point of near certainty that the accident could not and would not have occurred. In respect of the failure to have an adequate guard, it is implicit within the judgment of the trial judge that the accident would not have happened but for the clearly established breaches of statutory duty of the defendants with respect to the guard."

Costello J (dissenting): Life-changing injuries to prisoner - background of prisoner.

"The evidence of the plaintiff which was rejected by the trial judge was not peripheral or incidental to the issue of liability. It was essential. The plaintiff proved that but for the negligence of the defendants the accident could not have occurred. The trial judge accepted this. The plaintiff submits that this is sufficient to establishliability. I do not agree in the circumstances of this casewhere his positive version of how the accident occurred was rejected. Counsel for the defendants submitted that a breach of duty, whether statutory or otherwise, cannot be causative of an unaccepted version of events. I agree."