Cosgrove v Ryan & anor

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, an agricultural contractor, was engaged to harvest silage on farmland in The County. Overhead electric power lines owned and controlled by Company A crossed the field. On 29 August 1998, while the Plaintiff was operating a self-propelled silage harvester, the machine’s chute came into contact with the live cables, causing an arc and alleged personal injuries.

The Plaintiff sued both the landowner and Company A in the High Court. Shortly before trial the landowner admitted he had never reported low wires; thereafter Company A effectively became the sole Defendant. After a four-day hearing, Judge [Murphy] dismissed the action, holding that negligence had not been proved. The Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff had established, on the balance of probabilities, that Company A’s overhead lines were maintained at an unsafe height and that this amounted to negligence.
2. Whether the High Court erred in requiring the Plaintiff to disprove alternative causal theories (in particular, that ground slope raised the chute to wire height).
3. Whether, and to what extent, any contributory negligence by the Plaintiff reduced Company A’s liability.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The normal working height of the harvester’s chute was approximately thirteen feet; Company A’s own internal documentation identified fifteen feet as the minimum safe clearance, and that clearance was not provided.
• Company A produced no witness with technical or policy knowledge to rebut the Plaintiff’s prima facie case; in the absence of such evidence negligence should be inferred.
• Requiring agricultural contractors to measure wire heights or employ observers is unrealistic; Company A must anticipate normal machinery on uneven rural land.

Defendant's Arguments

• The accident was caused solely by the Plaintiff’s failure to adopt safety procedures: he could have measured the wire height, used an insulated rod or electronic device, employed a lookout, or continuously watched the chute.
• Even if the line was fifteen feet high, the harvester might have been on a slope or bump, elevating the chute into the wire; the Plaintiff had not proved otherwise.
• The Plaintiff, as an employer of himself and others, owed statutory and common-law duties to implement safety systems which he failed to observe.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge [Geoghegan], delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court, limited the analysis to liability.

• Prima facie negligence established: Unchallenged evidence showed the chute height at thirteen feet and Company A’s own documents prescribing fifteen-foot clearance. Photographs and expert testimony described the field as a relatively level meadow. In the absence of opposing technical evidence, this met the Plaintiff’s burden.
• No obligation to disprove every hypothesis: Citing textbook and case authority, the Court held a plaintiff is not required to negate all speculative alternatives. The “slope theory” was introduced late, unsupported by measurements, and could not defeat the claim.
• High duty of care for electricity suppliers: Because electricity is inherently dangerous, a supplier must take all reasonable measures to prevent foreseeable contact with overhead lines, including accounting for ordinary unevenness in agricultural land.
• Effect of Defendant’s silence: Company A elected not to call employees or electrical engineers. While entitled to adopt that strategy, the absence of explanatory evidence strengthened the inference of negligence.
• Contributory negligence: The Court accepted one criticism of the Plaintiff—that he could and should have glanced at the chute immediately before each passage under the wires. Other suggested precautions (measuring devices, insulated poles, paid observers) were deemed unrealistic or irrelevant. Contributory negligence was assessed at 25 %.

Holding and Implications

Appeal ALLOWED. The High Court’s dismissal was overturned. Liability was apportioned 75 % to Company A and 25 % to the Plaintiff. The matter was remitted to the High Court for assessment of damages.

Implications: The decision re-affirms the elevated standard of care required of electricity suppliers and clarifies that a plaintiff who establishes a coherent, uncontested account of negligence involving dangerous utilities need not disprove every alternative conjecture. It also illustrates the litigation risks for defendants who choose not to lead evidence where a prima facie case has been made.