Rice v Henley [1914] HCA 75

ICTR.) OF AUSTRALIA. 19

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

RICE . 5 4 , 3 i . 4 . APPELLANT; PLAINTIFF, AND HENLEY . 2 2 5 ' " 3 . RESPONDENT. DEFENDANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

Building Regulation—* Floors," meaning of —' Well-holes and similar openings" — H.C. oF A. Scaffolding and Lists Act 1912 (N.S.W.) (No. 38 of 1912), sec. 8, Second 1914.

Schedule, regulation 20. eo! Sypey, Regulation 20 of the Regulations contained in the Second Schedule to the py, 4,9.

Scaffolding and Lifts Act 1912 requires " all well-holes and similar openings in floors to be effectively guarded."

Griffith C.J., Isaacs and Ae " Gavan Duffy JJ.

Held, that the word "floors" means parts of buildings intended to be

walked upon and in a stage of construction when an ordinary person would think that he might walk about on them safely without finding a trap.

Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales affirmed.

Appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

An action was brought in the Supreme Court by Charles Rice against William J. Henley, in which by the fifth count of the declaration the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was a builder engaged in the erection of a building within the Metropolitan Police District of Sydney, and that the said building was above two stories high and the joists or girders had been laid, and yet the defendant did not have a temporary covering of close boards laid on the joists or girders directly above where men were

HIGH COURT [1914.

H.C. or A. working, and did not keep well-holes and similar openings in the

1914. ~~ Rice v HENteEy.

floor effectively guarded, and that by reason of the premises the plaintiff, being lawfully on the third floor of the said building and engaged in work in connection therewith, fell from the said floor and was injured. The plaintiff claimed £500. To this count the defendant pleaded not guilty. The action was tried before Sly J. and a jury. The learned Judge ruled that there was no evidence to go to the jury on the fifth count, and entered judgment for the defendant on that count. The jury having found a verdict for the defendant on the other counts, the plaintiff moved for a new trial on the ground (inter alia) that the learned Judge was in error in his ruling and in entering a verdict for the defendant on the fifth count.