High Court of Ireland Decisions

Rohcon Ltd. v. Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council [2002] IEHC 110 (22 November 2002)

THE HIGH COURT

1999 No. 8970P

BETWEEN

DAVID NOLAN

PLAINTIFF

AND

ROHCON LIMITED, AL READ ELECTRICAL COMPANY LIMITED,

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BOARD

AND

DUNLAOGHAIRE RATHDOWN COUNTY COUNCIL

DEFENDANTS

Judgment of Mr. Justice Diarmuid B. O'Donovan delivered on the 22nd day of November, 2002.

1.      The Plaintiff in this case, David Nolan, who is a fitter/welder by trade and is now aged thirty-one years, comes to Court seeking damages by way of compensation for injuries allegedly suffered by him on the 2^nd day of July, 1998, in the course of his employment with the first named Defendants at the Dunlaoghaire Pavilion Development Site, Dunlaoghaire in the County of Dublin. On the said occasion, together with one John Rochford, who was then operating a crawler crane, the Plaintiff was assisting in the movement of steel bars using the said crane. While he was so engaged, and at a time when he was steadying the said steel bars with his left hand, he wrapped his right arm around a lamp standard which, throughout the trial of this action, was referred to as "Pole H." and, as he did so, he was subjected to a very severe electric shock for the reason that, at the material time, the said pole was live with a very high electric current. In this regard, it is relevant to note that, at the material time, the steel bars which were being moved by the Plaintiff and by Mr. Rochford were attached to the chains of the crawler crane by two nylon straps but were not touching the ground at the time that the Plaintiff was electrocuted.

2.      It is common case that the Plaintiff was an innocent victim of the said affront to his person and that neither his employers, Rohcon Limited, the first named Defendants, nor the Dunlaoghaire Rathdown County Council, the fourth named Defendants, were in any way to blame for what happened to him.

3.      It is also common case that the reason that Pole H was live at the material time is because it was affected by crossed wires or what is known as a reversal of polarity. Apparently, a reversal of polarity occurs when, at a particular point in a circuit of electricity a live wire is connected to a neutral wire and a neutral wire is connected to a live wire. In this regard, it was submitted on behalf of the Electricity Supply Board, the third named Defendants, that the said reversal of polarity had resulted from electrical works which had been carried out by the second named Defendants, Messrs. Al Read Electrical Company Limited, at the Marine Road, Dunlaoghaire, during the months of May and June of 1998; it being accepted by the said Defendants that they did, indeed, execute certain electrical works on the said road during that period, whereas, for their part, they rejected the suggestion that the said reversal of polarity was attributable to any work carried out by them on the said road at the material time but rather suggested that such reversal of polarity was related to works carried out by the Electricity Supply Board at or in the vicinity of Pole H. at some time in the past prior to the incident which gave rise to this claim. In addition, the second named Defendants assert that Pole H. became live, whereby the Plaintiff suffered the injuries of which complaint is made by him, because it was improperly earthed due to the negligence of the Electricity Supply Board, their servants or agents. In that regard, it was the contention of the second named Defendants that, had Pole H been properly earthed, the reversal of polarity which caused it to become live would, instead, have caused a fuse within the pole to blow thereby preventing it from becoming live. Essentially, however, the second named Defendants maintained that the fault which occasioned the Plaintiffs injury occurred at or in the vicinity of Pole H whereas it was the contention of the Electricity Supply Board that it was in the circuitry between a micro-pillar, which was located at or close to a pole designated "Pole A" situate at the junction of Eblana Avenue and Marine Road, and Pole H; a circuitry which supplied Pole H.

4.      In the course of the trial of these proceedings, I heard an abundance of evidence; much of which was concerned with the conflicting assertions of the second and third named Defendants with regard to the cause or location of the reversal of polarity which had rendered Pole H. live thereby occasioning to the Plaintiff the injuries of which complaint is made by him. However, I also heard evidence relating to peripheral matters which, in my view, are not relevant to any issue which I have to decide and, accordingly, I do not consider it necessary for the purpose of this Judgment that I should review all of the evidence which I heard. Rather will I content myself with reviewing those portions of the evidence which, in my view, are related to the question of the cause or location of the reversal of polarity which rendered Pole H. to be live, thereby causing the injury of which the Plaintiff complains.

5.      Apart from the foregoing, it was agreed between the parties;

(a) that the work executed by the second named Defendants during the months of May and June of 1998 included replacing four electric light poles on the Town Hall side of Marine Road and the removal of two poles, referred to throughout the hearing as Poles "F" and "G", on the far side of the road, following which the gap was bridged by jointing the cables leading to and from Pole F and to and from Pole G and it was accepted that, while that work interfered with the circuit of electricity leading to Pole H, it did not involve any work at or in the vicinity of Pole H, itself

(b) That, in the course of the work aforesaid being executed by the second named Defendants, a fault occurred which resulted in a blackout of the street lights on the Marine Road and the surrounding area. That fault was identified by Messrs. Ciaran McCauley, an electrician employed by the Electricity Supply Board and John Farrell, an electrician employed by Messrs. Al Read Electrical Company Limited, as being a fault in the joint of a cable at the base of one of the poles on the town side of Marine Road which had been replaced by the second named Defendants.

(c) That, prior to the commencement of work at Marine Road by the second named Defendants as aforesaid, the public lighting system comprised what was described by Mr. McCauley as a "switch-wire" system which, apparently, meant that the supply of electricity to the circuit only operated during hours of darkness and was triggered by an automatic switch. However, following discovery of the fault which had resulted in the blackout of street lighting as aforesaid, Messrs. Al Read Electrical Company Limited requested the Electricity Supply Board to provide a full twenty four hour supply of electricity to the circuit which, apparently, involved the installation of a micro-pillar, or junction box, at the base of Pole "A" aforesaid. In this regard, it was Mr. Farrell and Mr. Farrell alone who repaired the fault which had given rise to the blackout of street lighting at Marine Road, it was Messrs. Al Read Electrical Company Limited who provided the micro-pillar and it was Mr. Farrell and he, alone, who fitted the micro-pillar and who made the connection to the micro-pillar and from the micro-pillar into the supply lines. The only involvement which the Electricity Supply Board had in this regard was to supply electricity to the circuit and

(d) That, it was Mr. Farrell and Mr. Farrell alone who was responsible for bridging the gaps in the cables following the removal of Poles F and G and he achieved this by means of what were described as torpedo type joints whose polarity was universally accepted as being good and proper.

6.      In the light of the foregoing although Mr. Anthony Tennyson, a Civil Engineer with a degree in electrical engineering, who gave evidence on behalf of the Electricity Supply Board speculated; in my view, without any justification whatsoever, that there may have been other joints in the circuit of which he was unaware, it seems to me that there were only two joints in the circuit at which the reversal of polarity which was responsible for enlivening Pole H could have occurred and those were the joint at the base of Pole H and the joint at the micro-pillar at the base of Pole A.

7.      It follows, I think, that, as Messrs Al Read Electrical Company Limited, through the medium of John Farrell, were responsible for fitting the micro-pillar and for connecting the micro-pillar to the supply lines, if it was the case that the reversal of polarity which was responsible for enlivening Pole H was located at the joint at the micro-pillar, the responsibility therefore was that of Messrs Al Read Electrical Company Limited. Conversely, given that Messrs Al Reid Electrical Company Limited did not execute any work at or in the vicinity of Pole H, if it was the case that the reversal of polarity which was responsible for enlivening that pole, was located in the joint at the base of that pole, then the responsibility therefore was that of the Electricity Supply Board.

8.      It would appear that, in the aftermath of the plaintiff's accident, the first qualified person on the scene was Mr. Noel Donnelly, an electrician, employed by the Electricity Supply Board who, coincidentally, was working nearby and was called to the scene; arriving some 15 minutes after the plaintiff had been electrocuted. Mr. Donnelly gave evidence, which I have no reason to doubt, that he tested the steel work on Pole H with a polarity tester and found it to be live. Furthermore, he noted that the ground at the base of the pole was intact. Mr. Donnelly then provided himself with a pair of rubber gloves and appropriate tools. He proceeded to open the inspection door on Pole H and did a check on the fuse unit which verified that there was reversed polarity at the location and that the fuse had not blown. He also found a wire, which he said was called a neutralising lead, connecting the negative side of the pole and he cut that wire with the result that the pole was rendered safe. Nevertheless, Mr. Donnelly said that the wires coming into the pole were still in a situation of reversed polarity but that he did not attempt to track them back for the purpose of ascertaining the source of the fault.

9.      The next man on the scene was Mr. Jimmy Connolly, who was a Depot Manager/Supervisor employed by Al Read Electrical Company Limited. Apparently, Mr. Connolly arrived on the scene some time after Mr. Donnelly and he confirmed that, at that stage, Pole H was not live. Mr. Connolly said that he opened the inspection door of Pole H, removed the cover from the fuse unit and, on checking the polarity with a meter, found it to be reversed, whereupon he disconnected the supply at the micro-pillar which was located near Pole A, which he described as the source, because it was the nearest point at which disconnection was accessible to him. In that regard, Mr. Connolly said that, visually speaking, the connection at the micro-pillar was perfect. However, in the inspection chamber at Pole H a live wire went into the neutral terminal. In that regard, it was suggested to Mr. Connolly under cross-examination that a photograph of the inspection chamber of Pole H which was taken by Mr. Martin O'Dea a Health and Safety Inspector on 2^nd September, 1998 showed otherwise; in other words, that it showed that the wiring at the pole was perfectly in order. While Mr. Connolly agreed that that was what that photograph depicted, he maintained that that photograph did not reflect what he had seen when he opened the inspection door of Pole H on the 2^nd of July 1998. He was adamant that, on that occasion, the polarity within the pole was reversed, as appears from his report dated the 17^th of August 1998 and that someone; he did not know who but, as I interpreted his evidence, he maintained that that someone, who he agreed might well have been himself, had corrected it before the photograph was taken. He was in no doubt, however, that the polarity within the pole was reversed when he checked it and, in my view, he is corroborated in that regard by the evidence of Mr. Noel Donnelly who said that, when he opened the inspection cover on Pole H. the wires coming into the pole were in a "reversed polarity situation" and by Mr. Brendan Elliot, an Electrical Engineer from the County Council, who was with Mr. Connolly at the time and who said that he also saw the wires reversed. Accordingly, I accept Mr. Connolly's evidence in that regard.

10.      Mr. Connolly then gave evidence that, he also attended the site on the 2^nd September 1998, on which occasion, he was in the company (inter alia) of Mr. Martin O'Dea, aforesaid, Mr. Brian Mongey an electrician, who had been seconded from Fingal County Council to the Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown Co. Council, and Mr. David Shields from the Electricity Supply Board. Mr. Connolly said that, on that occasion, the base of Pole H, which was underground, was opened up and disclosed what he described as a "concentric earth", which is a copper braid running around the outside of the cable (this was described by Electricity Supply Board witnesses as a shield) and which had been, as he described it, "chopped"; in other words it was not jointed and Mr. Connolly expressed the view that this had been done deliberately by whosoever had made the joint and that it was not, in his view, a safe practice. Indeed, Mr. Connolly said that if one of the electricians employed by Messrs Al Read Electrical Company Limited had done such a thing, he would not now be working for the company; that it was an absolutely criminal act. Furthermore, it was found that the wires were in a position of reversed polarity; a neutral wire connected to a live wire and a live wire connected to a neutral wire. In that regard, Mr. Connolly gave evidence that, notwithstanding the reversed polarity, the system would still work but, as it was not earthed, the use of a polarity tester prior to the joint would not disclose the fault. Mr. Connolly also emphasised that, while he is now aware that the inspection which was carried out on the 2^nd of September, 1998 disclosed that the wires in the joint at the base of Pole H. were in a situation of reversed polarity, this was not immediately apparent because they did not then know which was the live wire and which was the neutral wire, in that, the circuit was then dead and the colour coding of wires had changed over the years. It was not until he had checked what the situation was at the joint at the micro pillar at the base of Pole A. that it became clear that the wiring at the base of Pole H. was in a position of reversed polarity. All that was clear; Mr. Connolly said, immediately following the inspection of the joint at the base of Pole H. which took place on the 2^nd September, 1998, was that the joint had not been earthed and no assumptions could be made and he did not then make any assumption about the polarity of the wiring at that joint until they had traced the wires back along the circuit. This, Mr. Connolly, said was done, in that he and Mr. Brian Mongey had gone back to the micro pillar, at which point an inspection of the joint disclosed that the wiring was perfectly in order. Accordingly, insofar as Mr. Connolly was concerned, the reversed polarity which was responsible for enlivening Pole H. which, in turn, gave rise to the incident of which the Plaintiff complains, was located at the joint at the base of Pole H.. In that regard, Mr. Connolly conceded in evidence that, initially, he would have thought that the most likely point at which the condition of reversed polarity had occurred was at the micro pillar at the base of Pole A. and it that it was only after he had examined that joint that he was satisfied that that was not the case.

11.      As I understood it, the evidence of Mr. Jimmy Connolly was corroborated in its essentials by that of Mr. Brian Mongey. In particular, Mr. Mongey said two things; firstly, he confirmed that, when the joint at the base of Pole H. was exposed on the 2^nd of September, 1998 it was found that the earth had been disconnected and Mr. Mongey said that, had it been connected at the material time, the fuse in Pole H. would have blown and the Pole would not have become live. He added that it was a basic principle that the earth should have been connected and to disconnect it was not a safe practice. In this regard, it is noteworthy that Mr. David Shields, an electrician employed by the Electricity Supply Board, who gave evidence on behalf the Electricity Supply Board conceded that there was an absence of earthing at the base of Pole H. and that that was a fault, although he maintained that, at the time when the joint was made many years ago, it was not then the practice to connect the earth. The second thing that Mr. Mongey said, and he said it with great emphasis, was that the source of the problem which gave rise to this claim was at the joint at the base of Pole H. and nowhere else. In this regard, I digress to comment that Mr. Mongey impressed me as being a very honest and forthright witness, whose evidence was compellingly persuasive. Moreover, in considering his evidence, it is not, I think without significance that Mr. Mongey was a totally independent person; having no association with either Al Read Electrical Company Limited or the Electricity Supply Board; which cannot be said of many of the other witnesses who I heard. Like Mr. Connolly, Mr. Mongey said that, when the joint at the base of Pole H. was exposed on the 2^nd of September, 1998 he was not able to say whether or not a condition of reversed polarity existed there because such a determination cannot be made when the supply of electricity is disconnected, as it was at that time. He said that a condition of reversed polarity is not evident on a visual inspection. However, like Mr. Connolly, Mr. Mongey said, that, on the 2^nd of September, 1998, they traced the cables back from the joint at the base of Pole H. to the micro pillar, they exposed the joints at the micro pillar and they found that the connections there were correct. If that be so, it follows, of course, that the reversed polarity which was responsible for enlivening Pole H. was created at the joint at the base of Pole H. In this regard, the findings of Messrs. Connolly and Mongey, when they inspected the joint in the micro pillar at the Base of Pole A. on the 2^nd of September, 1998 seem to me to corroborate the evidence of Mr. Farrell who had said that, when he had completed the connection to the micro pillar on the 5^th of June, 1998 he used a megger tester at the micro pillar to ensure that the polarities were correct and that evidence was never challenged.

12.      Mr. Kevin Clery, a Consulting Electrical Engineer with a specialty in road lighting, said that, if the evidence of Messrs Connolly and Mongey was accurate, that it follows that the wiring at Pole H was incorrect and the fact that the earth conductor was not connected to the joint was an incredible omission and grossly negligent. In the light of that evidence having regard to the evidence which I heard from Messrs Connolly and Mongey with regard to the absence of an earth, I find as a fact that, at the material time, Pole H was improperly earthed although I note the evidence of several of the Electricity Supply Board witnesses that it was not the practice at the time when the joint at the base of Pole H was created to connect an earth conductor. In Mr. Clery's view, the absence of earthing was the more important and significant fault because, had the joint been properly earthed, a fuse would have blown and the circuit would have been safe. In this regard, Mr. Clery said that the joint at the base of Pole H would probably have been anything between fifteen and twenty years old. Accordingly, if Messrs Connolly and Mongey were correct, the condition of reversed polarity and the absence of an earth would have been of fifteen/twenty years antiquity, which would suggest that Pole H was live over the entire of that period or, at least, during the period that the night switch was activated and during the entire period after the micro-pillar was installed on the 5^th June 1998. Given that, apart from the complaint made by the Plaintiff, there was no history of anyone else having suffered a shock as a result of coming in contact with that Pole, this seems to be unlikely. However, Mr. Clery gave evidence that he had undertaken a considerable amount of research with regard to that question and had effected a simulation with phase reversal and a neutral connection on the pole and he found that it was possible to touch the pole and not get a sensation of shock from it. His explanation for this was that the pole was located on a footpath in concrete and concrete is an insulating material so that a person touching the pole is insulated from earth by virtue of the concrete and by virtue of shoe leather. So far as the Plaintiff was concerned, he had to be earthed to get a shock and Mr. Clery concluded that the reason that Mr. Nolan was earthed was because he was working on a building site which was likely to have all sorts of extraneous earthing material lying about the place but that, over the years, no one else, who came in contact with the pole, was sufficiently earthed to have received a shock from it. It was, therefore, Mr. Clery's view that it was very possible that the pole was live over a long period of time without anyone noticing it and, indeed, that was his own experience in the course of the tests which he carried out. Mr. Clery did concede that it was unusual that no one, other than Mr. Nolan, was reported to have received a shock from Pole H over that long period of time. But he did not accept that it was either inconceivable or highly improbable that the pole would have been live over that period. This view was vehemently rejected by Mr. David Matthews, who was also an electrician and is currently an engineering officer with the Electricity Supply Board and who gave evidence that Pole H was located at one of he busiest intersections in DunLaoghaire and, accordingly it was highly improbable that it could have been live for such a long period of time without any incident, other than that which befell the Plaintiff, being recorded. However, while I respect Mr. Matthews' view, the fact of the matter is that he never undertook any research on the subject and neither did he conduct any tests similar to the one conducted by Mr. Clery. Accordingly, other than expressing the view that it was highly improbable that Pole H would have been live over such a long period of time without anyone, other than the Plaintiff, complaining about it and that it was highly unlikely that a light bulb could have been changed at the pole without the person changing the bulb becoming aware of the fact that the pole was live or that the inspection door at the base of the pole could be opened without the person opening it becoming aware that the pole was live; although, as I interpreted his evidence, he conceded that it was possible to both change a light bulb and open the inspection door without becoming aware that the pole was live, Mr. Matthews was unable to substantiate his views in the way in which Mr. Clery was. In those circumstances, I prefer Mr. Clery's views. In this regard, I think that it is also of some significance that, assuming that the reversal of polarity which was responsible for the plaintiff's accident was located at the joint at the base of Pole H, it does not follow that Pole H was live at all times after that joint was created. During the period when the "switch wire" system described by Mr. McCauley was in operation, it would only have been live during the period from dawn to dusk although it would have been live at all times after the micro-pillar was installed by Mr. Farrell on 5^th June 1998.

13.      The import of the evidence of Mr. Anthony Tennyson B.E. to whom reference has already been made, is that the reversal of polarity which was responsible for enlivening Pole H. was located at the micro pillar. As I interpreted his evidence, this view was largely based on an acceptance of the accuracy of the photograph of the inside of the inspection hatch of Pole H. which was taken by Mr. Martin O'Dea on the 2^nd of September, 1998 and his belief that a photograph of the inside of the micro pillar, also taken by Mr. O'Dea, which was produced to him, represented good wiring practice as it followed accepted colour conventions as, indeed, in the view of Mr. Tennyson did the wiring inside Pole H. However, in the light of the evidence of Mr. Connolly which, as I have already pointed out, was corroborated by that of Messrs. Noel Donnelly and Brendan Elliot and which I accept, I am not persuaded that Mr. O'Dea's photograph represents the situation inside the inspection hatch at Pole H., when Mr. Connolly examined it shortly after the Plaintiff's accident. Rather do I think that the situation was as described by Mr. Connolly. Furthermore, Mr. Tennyson never had the opportunity of inspecting the inside of the micro pillar, as did Messrs. Connolly and Mongey, and I prefer their evidence with regard to what they found, when they did so.

14.      Insofar as the suggestion that Pole H. had been live over a period of 15/20 years is concerned, it was Mr. Tennyson's view that "it is inconceivable that a live condition for ten years would not be detected by a human or by an animal". However, with all due respect to Mr. Tennyson, apart from indicating that that was his view on the matter, he made no effort to justify that view as did Mr. Clery to justify the contrary view. Accordingly, I prefer Mr. Clery's views in that regard. Mr. Tennyson also said that ten or more years ago it was not the convention to connect an earth continuity conductor and an earth cable and, although he conceded that it might be safer to do so, he did not think that whosoever had been responsible for the joint at the base of Pole H. should be criticised for the failure to joint the earth. That may well be so.

15.      In the light of the foregoing, it seems to me that the foundations upon which Mr. Tennyson's views with regard to the location of the reversal of polarity are based were unsound and accordingly, with all due respect to Mr. Tennyson, I reject his views.

16.      Mr. David Shields, the electrician from the Electricity Supply Board to whom I have already referred, was the only witness who positively purported to identify the joint at the micro pillar at the base of Pole A. as the source of the reversed polarity which gave rise to this claim but it is significant that he conceded that he had not inspected that joint. Indeed, he said that he could not even remember seeing the joint at the base of Pole A. being opened on the 2^nd of September, 1998. Accordingly, his evidence has to be viewed as being of a speculative variety rather, than as stating a positive fact. It is also significant, I think, that when Messrs. Connolly and Mongey were giving evidence, it was not put to them that Mr. Shields would say that the source of the reversed polarity was located at the micro pillar at the base of Pole A. even though both of those gentlemen gave positive evidence that they had inspected that joint and found that it was a good and proper connection. Furthermore, if it is a fact, as Mr. Shields asserted, that the root of the problem was at the base of Pole A. and that he had been of that view since the 2^nd September, 1998, it is astonishing that nobody told Mr. Tennyson about that before he came to court and that he was left with the impression that the problem was located at the joints which were made following the removal of Poles F. and G.. Having regard to those omissions, I have no confidence in the evidence of Mr. Shields. In my view, his judgment is based on a perception, that, when the joint at the base of Pole H. was exposed on the 2^nd of September, 1998, it appeared to him to be correctly wired. As I interpreted his evidence, that Judgment was based on the colour of the wiring which was found, and on his erroneous view that those colours indicated that the joint had been correctly wired, whereas the fact of the matter is that the wires were not tested on that occasion, and indeed, could not have been tested because, at the time, the circuit was dead. Accordingly, there was no positive evidence that the joint at the micro-pillar at the base of Pole A was defective whereas there was positive evidence from Messrs Connolly and Mongey, who, unlike Mr. Shields, had inspected that joint and found that it was a good and proper connection. In those circumstances, I have no hesitation in prefering the positive evidence of Messrs Connolly and Mongey to the speculative evidence of Mr. Shields.

17.      Mr. Martin O'Dea, the Health and Safety Inspector, to whom reference has already been made, gave evidence that he had attended the site of the Plaintiff's accident on, among other days, the 2^nd of September, 1998 and, that on that occasion, among other things, he took the photograph of the inside of the inspection chamber at Pole H. to which reference has already been made. It was Mr. O'Dea's understanding that the inside of that inspection hatch was then in the same condition as it had been immediately following the Plaintiff's accident but, as I have indicated, Mr. Jimmy Connolly maintained that the fact of the matter was that that photograph did not reflect what he had seen when he opened the inspection chamber on the 2^nd of July, 1998 and as I have indicated I accept Mr. Connolly's evidence in that regard. Mr. O'Dea also gave evidence that he had interpreted a comment which Mr. Jimmy Connolly had made to him indicating that it was Mr. Connolly's view that it was Messrs. Al Read Electrical Company Limited who had been responsible for the reversal of polarity which gave rise to the Plaintiff's accident. However, having heard Mr. Connolly's evidence in that regard, I am satisfied that what Mr. Connolly conveyed to Mr. O'Dea was that, initially, he, Mr. Connolly, had thought that the most likely point at which the condition of reversed polarity had occurred was at the micro pillar at the base of Pole A. which, of course, had been fitted and connected by Mr. Farrell of Messrs. Al Read Electrical Company Limited. However, that had occurred before Mr. Connolly had inspected the joint at the micro pillar at the base of Pole A and I am satisfied that no such concession was made to Mr. O'Dea following that inspection.

18.      Mr. John Farrell was criticised for his failure, which he accepted, to carry out a polarity test at the torpedo joints which he created following the removal of Poles F and G. However, while the relevant regulations (Regulation 49 (1) of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations 1993) (S.I. 44 of 1993) would appear to impose an obligation on him to conduct such a test, all the expert evidence available to me indicated that a polarity test at those joints would not have indicated the existence, or otherwise, of the reversal of polarity which was responsible for enlivening Pole H. In this regard, as I interpreted the evidence, it was only if Mr. Farrell had carried out a polarity test at Pole H, itself, that the reversal of polarity would have been detected and, in the circumstance that none of the works executed by Mr. Farrell were carried out at or in the vicinity of Pole H, I do not consider that he was under any obligation to carry out a polarity test at Pole H itself. As I do not consider that Mr. Farrell was under any obligation to conduct a polarity test at Pole H, his failure to do so could not amount to negligence. In this regard, it may well be that, technically speaking, Mr. Farrell was in breach of the relevant regulations on account of his failure to carry out a polarity test at those torpedo joints but, if he was, given that it was accepted by all concerned that a test at those joints would not have disclosed the reversal of polarity which was responsible for enlivening Pole H, I am not persuaded that Mr. Farrell's technical breach of the regulations (if there was one) is of any relevance to the issues which I have to decide in this case.

19.      For the sake of completeness it is to be noted that there was controversy as to whether or not the works executed by Messrs Al. Read Electrical Company Limited during the months of May and June of 1998 at the Marine Road, Dun Laoghaire, were major or minor alterations within the meaning of the Regulations. In the light of the conclusions which I have reached, I do not think it necessary to adjudicate on that issue.

20.      Having regard to the foregoing, it is my judgment that the reversal of polarity which was responsible for enlivening Pole H as a result of which the Plaintiff suffered the injuries of which he complains was caused when the joint at the base of Pole H was created many years ago and that, therefore, the Electricity Supply Board are responsible to the Plaintiff for the injury which he suffered.