JUDGMENT OF AZU CRABBE J.A.
On or about 10 march 1964, the respondent, (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), who was employed as a cleaner by the appellants (hereinafter called the defendants), was injured while cleaning a revolving or rotatory machine at the defendant's factory in Kumasi. The medical evidence for the plaintiff showed that the plaintiff had a severe compound fracture (crash injury) of the right hand, amounting virtually to traumatic amputation of the right hand above the level of the wrist joint. This injury necessitated surgical amputation of the right hand above the level of the wrist joint.
There were also lacerated wounds involving the index and the middle fingers of the left hand which had been permanently deformed, and this would interfere with his capacity to grip objects or things. Permanent disability was estimated by the medical witness at 45 per cent plus ten per cent disability due to the injury to the left hand—a total of 55 per cent permanent incapacity.
The plaintiff's action against the defendants was for damages for breach of common law and statutory duty to provide a safe system of work at the defendants' factory whereby, the plaintiff suffered the injuries described above whilst cleaning a power-operated and weaving machine at the factory. The plaintiff alleged that the machine was a dangerous machine. The defendants denied that the machine was dangerous, but whilst not denying that the plaintiff suffered [p.661] injuries, they put the plaintiff to strict proof of the extent of the injuries sustained by him. The defendants further averred that the plaintiff was himself negligent, or alternatively that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
The issues settled and agreed to be tried were:
(i) Whether or not the defendants were in breach of the common law duty of providing a safe system of work for the plaintiff;
(ii) Whether or not the defendants were negligent for not taking adequate precautions for the safety of the plaintiff while engaged on the said work;
(iii) Whether or not the plaintiff contributed to the said accident by his negligence;
(iv) Whether or not the defendants were in breach of statutory duties as imposed by sections 20, 21 and 22 of the Factories Ordinance, 1952 (No. 33 of 1952).
In principle, there seems to be no distinction between actions for common law negligence and actions for breach of statutory duty, for a pursuer or plaintiff must prove not only negligence or brea
