Wright & Anor -v- AIB Finance Leasing Ltd & Anor [2007] IEHC 409 (05 December 2007)

Wright & Anor -v- AIB Finance Leasing Ltd & Anor [2007] IEHC 409 (05 December 2007)

The harvester was not fit for purpose due to a design defect: the inspection hatch was too close to the blower box paddles, with no mechanism to prevent movement of the paddles when the hatch was open. This created a foreseeable risk of injury, which materialized. The defendants breached contract with the plaintiffs, and the manufacturer (third party) is liable to indemnify the defendants due to the design defect. The plaintiffs' technical negligence did not cause the injury as the risk was not foreseeable to them.

Citation
[2007] IEHC 409
Parties
Plaintiffs: Thomas Wright and William Wright; First Defendant: AIB Finance Leasing Limited; Second Defendant: Geary’s Garage Limited; Third Party: John Deere Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
05 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Contribution and Indemnity Proceedings Following Settlement of Personal Injury Claim / High Court Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiffs; full indemnity to defendants from third party (manufacturer)
Legal Topics
Merchantable Quality, Fitness for Purpose, Defective Product, Employer's Liability, Indemnity, Causation, Foreseeability, Design Defect
Contract Law Product Liability Tort Law Employment Law Merchantable Quality Fitness for Purpose Defective Product Employer's Liability +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Wright and William Wright

Plaintiffs

AIB Finance Leasing Limited

First Defendant

Geary’s Garage Limited

Second Defendant

John Deere Limited

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Contribution and Indemnity Proceedings Following Settlement of Personal Injury Claim / High Court Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What caused the movement of the paddles in the harvester leading to injury?
  2. 2 Was the injury foreseeable to the manufacturer?
  3. 3 Was the harvester of merchantable quality and fit for purpose?

Ratio Decidendi

The harvester was not fit for purpose due to a design defect: the inspection hatch was too close to the blower box paddles, with no mechanism to prevent movement of the paddles when the hatch was open. This created a foreseeable risk of injury, which materialized. The defendants breached contract with the plaintiffs, and the manufacturer (third party) is liable to indemnify the defendants due to the design defect. The plaintiffs' technical negligence did not cause the injury as the risk was not foreseeable to them.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiffs; full indemnity to defendants from third party (manufacturer)

Orders

  • Plaintiffs succeed in full against defendants for sums paid in settlement and costs.
  • Defendants entitled to complete indemnity from third party (John Deere Limited) for all damages and costs.