JUDGMENT :

Chapman, J.

1. It was urged on me by counsel that the plaintiff was a gratuitous bailee of the machine, that it was not a thing dangerous in itself, and that, in relation to a chattel not dangerous in itself, the only duty of a person who has the ownership or de facto control of the' chattel is to give warning of the danger which factually known to the owner or controller. In support of these propositions, it was referred to MUNKMAN ON EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY (6th Edn., 1966), pp.147 to 149, and 2 HALSBURY'S LAWS OF ENGLAND (3rd Edn.), p. 110 para 218. I venture to feel some doubt about these propositions, even assuming that I were capable of carrying my mind back to the legal atmosphere prevailing in 1931. The boundaries of the so-called category of things dangerous in themselves were always so vague as to be almost indeterminate once one passed beyond-the ambit of explosives, poisons and loaded guns, and no one would suggest that a grinding machine, if properly set up, came within the category. But this machine was not properly set up, and because it was improperly set up, it was in fact explosive. Why should it not be regarded as a thing dangerous in itself? Again would it