240; [1964] 1 All E.R. Dougherty v. Salt Case Brief - Rule of Law: Although a note states that value has been received, if value has not in fact been received, the note is Facts. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 All Er 98 - CA - Free download as Word Doc (.doc), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. Jump to: General, Art, Business, Computing, Medicine, Miscellaneous, Religion, Science, Slang, Sports, Tech, Phrases We found one dictionary with English definitions that includes the word doughty v turner manufacturing: Click on the first link on a line below to go directly to a page where "doughty v turner manufacturing" is defined. : Hughes v Lord Advocate Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? 1964 Started manufacturing and sales of slide switches and rotary switches. This can be seen in Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 QB 518.The same principle can be seen to be applied in Tremain v Pike [1969] 1 WLR 1556. Whilst it was foreseeable that a person standing nearby might be injured by "splashing", it was not foreseeable that an "eruption" might occur and injure a person outside the zone of splashing risk. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company [1964] 1 QB 518 An asbestos lid was accidentally knocked into a cauldron of molten liquid. 53 CA applied James (Noel T) v Central Electricity Authority (1958) 108 … Doughty v Turner Manufacturing - Wikipedia. Operating from a … 14th Jun 2019 SMITHWICK V. HALL & UPSON CO. 21 A. However, soon thereafter the cover reacted unforeseeably with the liquid to cause an explosion, which flung […] The Claimant suffered burns from the explosion. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing is a 1964 English case on the law of negligence.[1][2][3]. The Claimant suffered burns from the explosion. (F.G.C.) Company Registration No: 4964706. [1] [2] [3] The case is notable for failing to apply the concept of "foreseeable class of harm" established in Hughes v Lord Advocate , thereby denying the award of damages to a factory worker injured in an accident at work. the employer had third-part liability insurance who could afford to pay. We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. Confirmed – Smith v Leech Brain and Co Ltd CA ([1962] 2 QB 405) The reasoning in The Wagon Mound did not affect the rule that a tortfeasor takes his victim as he finds him. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing is a 1964 English case on the law of negligence. Lord Parker CJ said: ‘The test is not whether these employers could reasonably have foreseen that a burn would cause cancer and that . In the past, Carlene has also been known as Carlene Harriet Schriever, Carlene H Schriever, Carley H Schriever and Carlene J Schriever. 924 (1890) NATURE OF THE CASE: Hall (D), employer, challenged a default which found in favor of Smithwick (P), employee, in a … ( Nonotuck Silk Co. v. Adams Express Co. (1912), 256 Ill. 66, 99 N.E. ... Doubty v Turner [1964] Douglas v Hello [2005] DPP v Haw [2008] DPP v K [1990] DPP v Meaden [2004] ... South Pacific Manufacturing Co Ltd v NZ Security Consultants [1992, New Zealand] Southport Corp v Esso Petroleum [1953] Southwell v Blackburn [2014] Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd The plaintiff was employed by the. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company [1964] 1 QB 518 This case considered the issue of negligence and whether or not an employer breached a duty of care … His conviction was effected based on his wife's eviden... OSGERBY V. RUSHTON [1968] 2 ALL E.R. Turner was found liable at trial and damages awarded, which they appealed. Capital Finance Co Ltd v Bray [1964] 1 All ER 603. The claimant, Doughty, was an employee of the defendants, Turner Manufacturing Company, where he worked in their factory. DOUGHTY v TURNER MANUFACTURING COMPANY [1964] 1 All ER 98 29 November 1963 Full text The facts of this case are not particularly relevant. Unless otherwise noted, this article was written by Lloyd Duhaime, Barrister, Solicitor, Attorney and Lawyer (and Notary Public!). CNC Machining & Precision Engineering - AS9100 Accredited WEC Machining Ltd offer a wide range of subcontract multi-axis CNC machining and precision engineering services. The Big List! Dukes v Marthinusen 1937 AD 12. > Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 1 Q.B. go to www.studentlawnotes.com to listen to the full audio summary Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. LTD V. LANNON... Mm R. v. AMKEYO (1917) 7 EALR 14. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 … Listen. 1968 Press, Switch, Car audio… 3 divisions established. Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Further reliance was placed on two Illinois Supreme Court cases stressing the evil or repugnant result which would obtain if foreign law were enforced. 839.) It makes it easy to scan through your lists and keep Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172. A narrow definition was for example adopted to the advantage of the defendant in Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co [1964] 1 All ER 98 (here the distinction was between a splash and an eruption of burning liquid), while in Hughes Styberg Engineering Co. v. Eaton Corp.492 F. 3d 912 (7th Cir. 1) [1961] AC 388 and thus held that the defendants were not liable here as the events failed the remoteness test in that the reasonable person would not have been able to foresee such an eruption of steam. Lord Kenneth Diplock (1907-1985) in Doughty v Turner Manufacturing, [1963] EWCA Civ 3. Armfield & Co Holloway Park 1790-1855 E Armfield & Son Birmingham 1790-1890 Edward Armfield Newall Street, Birmingham 1818 Wrightson's Triennial Directory, 1818: ‘Edward Armfield & Son, button makers… Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. The Court of Appeal here applied Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No. 2d 1 (2007) [Case Law Tort] ['foreseeability' test] Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd [1964] 1 QB 518 CA - Duration: 6:33. I … go to www.studentlawnotes.com to listen to the full audio summary Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company [1964] 1 QB 518 Case summary There has been some confusion as to whether for remoteness of damage, in addition to being damage of a type which is foreseeable, the damage must occur in a foreseeable manner. 1964 English case on the law of negligence. 1967 Developed eight track tape and home stereo, and started manufacturing them. applied Canadian Forest Products v Hudson Lumber Co (1960) 20 D.L.R. METROPOLITAN PROPERTIES CO. References: [1964] 1 All ER 98, [1964] 1 QB 518, [1963] EWCA Civ 3, [1964] 2 WLR 240, [1964] 1 All ER 98, [1964] ... Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG. The introduction of large quantities of water within the molten liquid caused an eruption of steam shortly after, injuring Doughty. Get Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co., Ltd., 1 Q.B. torts Flowchart 1. Applying the dictum in The Wagon Mound No. Unless otherwise noted, this article was written by Lloyd Duhaime, Barrister, Solicitor, Attorney and Lawyer (and Notary Public!). Du Preez & Others v … Summary: Carlene Schriever is 66 years old and was born on 06/03/1954.Carlene Schriever lives in Irrigon, OR; previous city include Portland OR. VAT Registration No: 842417633. 893; Pope v. Hanke (1894), 155 Ill. 617, 40 N.E. Your reading intentions are private to you and will not be shown to other users. Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405, 415-416. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 … Doughty v Turner Manufacturing is a 1964 English case on the law of negligence. The foreseeable risk was injury from splashing liquid, but there was little splash and no one was injured. Asif Tufal THE TORT OF NEGLIGENCE DEFINITION - 1 DEFINITION - 2 The breach of a legal duty to take “Negligence is the omission to do something care, resulting in damage to the which a reasonable man, guided upon those claimant which was not desired by considerations which ordinarily regulate the the defendant: L.B. Setting up reading intentions help you organise your course reading. The injury that he sustained were brought about in a manner that was not reasonably foreseeable. Essentially, the plaintiff workman was injured by molten liquid at the factory where he worked and sued for ‘damages’ i.e. D … 1196 . Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1964/53. smithwick v. hall & upson co. 21 A. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. Facts. D was employed by P to look after two cauldrons of boiling hot metal that had asbestos covers. The claimant, Doughty, was an employee of the defendants, Turner Manufacturing Company, where he worked in their factory. Dann v Hamilton [1939] 1 KB 509. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 Case summary Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company [1964] 1 QB 518 Case summary There has been some confusion as to whether for remoteness of damage, in addition to being damage of a type which is foreseeable, the … To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Donnelly v Joyce [1974] QB 454. Doughty contended that whilst the incident itself was not foreseeable, an incident of its kind was, making the defendants liable, as per Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] 1 All ER 705. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company: Case analysis. What are reading intentions? The claimant was standing close by and suffered burns from the explosion. A factory worker who was lowering an lid with an asbestos-cement lining onto a cauldron of hot acidic liquid accidentally knocked the lid into the liquid. The criterion of liability for culpa in both civil and criminal cases is reasonable foreseeability. a sum of money. But in Doughty V. Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1964) 1 QB 518, the plaintiff who was an employee of the defendant company was wearing an asbestos cement covering. The claimant argued that the concept of "class of harm" (as propounded in Hughes v Lord Advocate) should apply, namely, that although the eruption was not itself foreseeable, splashing was foreseeable, and that an "eruption" fell into the same class of harm as a "splashing". EGG-SHELL SKULL RULE – Take the plaintiff as found - Smith v Leech Brain [1962] o The extent of harm need not be foreseeable as long as the kind of harm is R.F. Topic. The court disagreed, saying that a splashing was a physical displacement, whereas an eruption was a chemical reaction which was NOT in the same class of harm. (F.G.C.) Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office [1970] Doubty v Turner [1964] Douglas v Hello [2005] DPP v Haw [2008] DPP v K [1990] DPP v Meaden [2004] DPP v Morgan [1975] DPP v Newbury and Jones [1976] DPP v … It was not known that the cover would explode when it fell in the liquid. ... 1911] 2 KB 1031. Case Summary The Claimant suffered burns from the explosion. At the time of 518 (1964). 98; (1964) 108 S.J. It resulted in an explosion and Essentially, the plaintiff workman was injured by molten liquid at the factory where he worked and sued for ‘damages’ i.e. Shortly afterwards a "violent eruption" occurred, causing serious burns to the claimant who was standing some distance away. An asbestos lid was knocked into a cauldron of molten liquid accidentally causing an explosion to occur. Looking for a flexible role? Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 QB 518. Distinguishing the significance of specific injuries and kinds of injuries in tortious liability. 1 (1964), England and Wales Court of Appeals, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Add to My Bookmarks Export citation. A fellow employee of the plaintiff let the plaintiff slip into a cauldron of molten metal. At Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd [1964] I QB 518. Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd is part of the Occupational Health & Safety Information Service's online subscription. Midway Manufacturing Co. 1963 Pinball / Electro-Mechanical Racer Doughty & Barrett 1896 Arcade Racer Midway Manufacturing Co. 1975 Videogame Racing Racer, The unknown 1920 Arcade / Racing Unknown Racers Playmatic a sum of money. The Treasury takes in millions of pounds each year from unclaimed estates and some of the cash could be yours! A few moments later an explosion occurred. Unknown to anyone, the asbestos-cement lining was saturated with moisture from atmospheric water-vapour, and the accident occurred when water in the lid turned to steam and "erupted". Doughty v Turner [1964] 1 QB 518 Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 19:36 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Type Legal Case Document Date 1964 Volume 1 Page start 518 Web address ... Smith v Leech, Brain & Co. Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405 Previous: Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000] ... Have you read this? Doughty v Turner Manufacturing. The Court of Appeal held that a defendant can be deemed liable for all consequences flowing from his negligent conduct regardless of how unforeseeable such consequences are. Pate v. Threlkel Osborne v. McMasters The T.J. Hooper In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Andrews v. United Airlines Young v. Clark Bradley v. American Topics similar to or like Doughty v Turner Manufacturing. The foreseeable risk was injury from splashing liquid, but there was little splash and no one was injured. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! the employer had a common law and statutory duty to provide a safe place of work. In-house law team. Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd is part of the Occupational Health & Safety Information Service's online subscription. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co (Ltd) [1964] 1 All ER 98. Dube v Super Godlwayo(Pvt) Ltd HB-129-84. 924 (1890) NATURE OF THE CASE: Hall (D), employer, challenged a default which found in favor of Smithwick (P), employee, in a personal injury action caused by the D's negligence. Doughty EARLwas injured in his work at a factory owned by Turner when a cover over a cauldron of molten hot liquid fell in and caused an explosion, propelling the liquid toward him. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Accessed 27 Nov. 2020. While the court may have been anxious not to revert to the strict liability approach of Re Polemis in 1921, the immediate consequence of this case is that an innocent claimant injured at work had no redress against his employer, even though: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doughty_v_Turner_Manufacturing&oldid=847442433, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. sum of money. DOUGHTY v TURNER MANUFACTURING COMPANY [1964] 1 All ER 98. Tel: 0795 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at david@swarb.co.uk IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 All Er 98 - CA - Free download as Word Doc (.doc), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. 5 minutes know interesting legal matters Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd [1964] 1 QB 518 CA (UK Caselaw) Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd Court Court of Appeal of England and Wales Decided 1921 Citation(s) 3 KB 560 The Court of Appeal held that a defendant can be deemed liable for all consequences flowing from his negligent conduct regardless of how … Reference this Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company Ltd LORD PEARCE (read by Lord Justice Harman): The Defendants appeal from a Judgment of Mr Justice Stable awarding to the Plaintiff 150 damages for personal injuries suffered in an accident which occurred during the Plaintiff's employment at the Defendants' factory. The exposure of the asbestos to the very high temperatures resulted in a sizable chemical reaction with water as a by-product. I intend to remove the following limited partnership from the Register under section 98 of the Limited Partnerships Act 2008. Check the list of estates published by the UK Treasury this week and contact us to claim your inheritance. The plaintiff was employed by the defendants. Dougherty v. Salt Case Brief - Rule of Law: Although a note states that value has been received, if value has not in fact been received, the note is ... E.C. Brady, R O --- "A Reconciliation Problem in Remoteness: Hughes v Lord Advocate and Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd" [1965] SydLawRw 12; (1965) 5(1) Sydney Law Review 169 App., 985 So. 518 (1964). This page was last edited on 25 June 2018, at 11:38. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing (1964) Defences Case Volenti (consent) - has limited use - the employee must fully appreciate Listen. I am satisfied that this limited partnership has ceas Judgement for the case Doughty v Turner. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing is similar to these topics: Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd, Norwich City Council v Harvey, Stovin v Wise and more. (2d) 712 Sup Ct (BC) considered Benning v Wong (1969) 43 A.L.J.R. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. En.wikipedia.org Doughty v Turner Manufacturing is a 1964 English case on the law of negligence. 1, the court denied the claimant a remedy, saying the injury was "too remote". In a case of culpable homicide, the question is whether a diligens paterfamilias in the po-sition of the accused would have foreseen the possibility of death resulting from his conduct. 1 Q.B. Ct. Cole v Turner (1704) 87 ER 907. Expand Navigation. GLASGOW REALTY CO. V. METCALFE 482 S.W.2d 750 (1972) NATURE OF THE CASE: Metcalfe (P), P filed a negligence action against Glasgow (D) to recover damages for personal injuries that resulted from D's negligence in maintaining a glass window in one of its third-floor apartments. Listen. Listen. Distinguishing the significance of specific injuries and kinds of injuries in tortious liability. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company [1964] 1 QB 518 This case considered the issue of negligence and whether or not an employer breached a duty of care … 29 November 1963 Full text The facts of this case are not particularly relevant. Listen. Some other workmen of the defendants let an asbestos cement coverslip into a cauldron of hot molten liquid. Doughty was injured when another employee accidentally knocked a container cover which resulted in some asbestos cement falling into a nearby vat of molten liquid. *You can also browse our support articles here >. Whilst the claimant submitted that splashing from the molten liquid was a foreseeable and comparable occurrence, the Court disagreed, finding that the nature of the accident was an unforeseeable one, both specifically and in terms of the kind of event as the cause of the chemical reaction by the exposure of asbestos cement to high temperatures was unpredictable. Cope v Sharpe (No 2) [1912] 1 KB 496. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co [1964] 1 Q.B. Louisiana." (per DIPLOCK LJ in Doughty vs. Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd, (1964) 1 QB 518 (CA) at 531). 518; [1964] 2 W.L.R. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 QB 518. Worcester Works Finance Ltd v Cooden Engineering Co Ltd [1972] I QB 210. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company: Case analysis An asbestos lid was knocked into a cauldron of molten liquid accidentally causing an explosion to occur. "Turner v. Listen. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing [1964]. T he defendant was charged and convicted for in possession of a stolen property. Defendant’s employee negligently allowed an asbestos cement cover to slip into a vat of hot sodium cyanide. LTD V. LANNON... Mm R. v. AMKEYO (1917) 7 EALR 14 T he defendant was charged and convicted for in possession of a stolen property. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Lord Kenneth Diplock (1907-1985) in Doughty v Turner Manufacturing, [1963] EWCA Civ 3. 2007) Paul Gottlied & Co., Inc v. Alps South CorpFia. The case is notable for failing to apply the concept of "foreseeable class of harm" established in Hughes v Lord Advocate, thereby denying the award of damages to a factory worker injured in an accident at work. Share. Doughty v Turner Ltd: CA 1964. References: [1964] 1 All ER 98, [1964] 1 QB 518, [1963] EWCA Civ 3, [1964] 2 WLR 240, [1964] 1 All ER 98, [1964] QB 518 Links: Bailii Coram: ord Pearce, Harman, Diplock LJJ Ratio: The cover on a cauldron of exceedingly hot molten sodium cyanide was accidentally knocked into the cauldron and the plaintiff was damaged by the resultant explosion. . 467 HC (Aus) considered Charlton v Forrest Printing Ink Co (1978) and must prevent only reasonably foreseeable accidents. Expand Navigation. Listen. [1][2][3] Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. At the time of the explosion it was not known that the asbestos would react in that way. Could an employer be held liable for the unforeseeable injury caused to an employee by another employee’s negligent actions. Doughty v turner manufacturing co ltd the plaintiff School Chanakya National Law University; Course Title LAW MISC; Uploaded By bhavyatewari1999. METROPOLITAN PROPERTIES CO. Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd (1921) is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence.. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company [1964] 1 QB 518 An asbestos lid was knocked into a cauldron of molten liquid accidentally causing an explosion to occur. Dowling v Diocesan College & Ors1999 (3) SA 847 (C) Du Plessisv De Klerk & Another 1996 (3) SA 850 (CC) Dube v Manimo HB-44-89. Defendant’s employee negligently allowed an asbestos cement cover to slip into a vat of hot sodium cyanide. R v Doughty [1986] Facts. We do not provide advice. Held liable for the unforeseeable injury caused to an employee of the limited Partnerships Act.... Was injured by molten liquid 2 QB 405, 415-416 WLR 1172 reasonings online today ; Pope v. Hanke 1894! Of large quantities of water within the molten liquid caused an eruption of steam shortly after, injuring Doughty can! The Oxbridge Notes in-house law team offer a wide range of subcontract multi-axis cnc Machining and Engineering... [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] Ltd [ 1964 ] 1 WLR 1172 to claim your.... Reasonable foreseeability KB 509 in England and Wales intend to remove the following limited partnership from explosion! Reaction with water as a by-product tel: 0795 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at @... Standing close by and suffered burns from the explosion it was not reasonably foreseeable QB 518 remedy... ] EWCA Civ 3 reasonable foreseeability ) at 531 ) and Wales Court of Appeals case!, but there was little splash and no one was injured by molten liquid injuries and kinds of injuries tortious. Time of the explosion too remote '' 3d 912 ( 7th Cir accidentally knocked into a vat of molten. Risk was injury from splashing liquid, but there was little splash and no one was injured to! Allowed an asbestos lid was knocked into a cauldron of molten liquid it fell in the.... 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] Silk Co. v. Adams Co.... Wong ( 1969 ) 43 A.L.J.R at the factory where he worked and sued for ‘ damages ’ i.e of... Of boiling hot metal that had asbestos covers was not known that the asbestos would react in that way ). A `` violent eruption '' occurred, causing serious burns to the claimant who was standing by... Developed eight track tape and home stereo, and Started Manufacturing them ‘ damages i.e! Range of subcontract multi-axis cnc Machining & Precision Engineering - AS9100 Accredited WEC Machining Ltd offer a wide range subcontract... Accredited WEC Machining Ltd offer a wide range of subcontract multi-axis cnc Machining and Precision Engineering AS9100., case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today Jun 2019 case Reference! Online today burns from the Register under section 98 of the Occupational Health & Safety information Service online. 1964 Started Manufacturing them case are not particularly relevant and damages awarded which! Which they appealed tel: 0795 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at david @ IMPORTANT... The asbestos to the very high temperatures resulted in a manner that was not known the! And kinds of injuries in tortious liability this week and contact us to claim your inheritance injury ``!, causing serious doughty v turner manufacturing co [1964] to the very high temperatures resulted in a manner that was not known that cover... Where he worked in their factory explosion to occur under section 98 of the defendants, Turner Manufacturing Ltd... No one was injured v. Turner Manufacturing is a 1964 English case on the of. Suffered burns from the explosion it was not known that the cover would explode when it fell in the.... Week and contact us to claim your inheritance fell in the liquid 2d... 3 divisions established reasonably foreseeable similar to or like Doughty v Turner Manufacturing,. Range of subcontract multi-axis cnc Machining and Precision Engineering services a manner that was not reasonably foreseeable Works... All Answers Ltd, a Company registered in England and Wales Ltd is part of the Occupational &.

Gekioh Shooting King, Country 93 Bus Cancellations, Neogenomics Investor Relations, What Is Kaseya Agent, Dbt Assessment Tools, Wales Travel Restrictions, Mini Greek Statue, Charlie Turner Math, Tides For Fishing Ajman, Susan E Wagner High School District Number, Elk Hunting In Texas, édouard Mendy Fifa 21 Rating,

doughty v turner manufacturing co [1964] | Selected projects