Macdonald v David Macbrayne Ltd [1915] ScotCS CSIH_2 (17 March 1915)

Macdonald v David Macbrayne Ltd [1915] ScotCS CSIH_2 (17 March 1915)

The defenders were primarily at fault for negligently delivering a barrel of highly inflammable naphtha to the pursuer instead of paraffin, and the resulting fire was a natural and probable consequence of that negligence. The pursuer was not guilty of contributory negligence, as there was no legal duty to operate a perfect business system or to combine the knowledge of employer and assistant in the absence of actual knowledge. Damages for the destruction of the store were recoverable, but damages for personal injury suffered by the pursuer in attempting to fight the fire were too remote and not recoverable.

Citation
[1915] ScotCS CSIH_2
Parties
Pursuer: Macdonald; Defender: David Macbrayne, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 March 1915
Procedural Posture
Delict (negligence) / Appeal From Sheriff to Court of Session (inner House)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; interlocutor of Sheriff recalled; judgment of Sheriff-substitute restored except as to head 8 of damages.
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Causation, Remoteness of Damage, Liability for Dangerous Goods
Tort Law Delict Negligence Contributory Negligence Causation Remoteness of Damage Liability for Dangerous Goods

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Macdonald

Pursuer

David Macbrayne, Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Delict (negligence) / Appeal From Sheriff to Court of Session (inner House)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders were liable for damages caused by negligent misdelivery of dangerous goods
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer was guilty of contributory negligence barring recovery
  3. 3 Whether the damages claimed were too remote

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders were primarily at fault for negligently delivering a barrel of highly inflammable naphtha to the pursuer instead of paraffin, and the resulting fire was a natural and probable consequence of that negligence. The pursuer was not guilty of contributory negligence, as there was no legal duty to operate a perfect business system or to combine the knowledge of employer and assistant in the absence of actual knowledge. Damages for the destruction of the store were recoverable, but damages for personal injury suffered by the pursuer in attempting to fight the fire were too remote and not recoverable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; interlocutor of Sheriff recalled; judgment of Sheriff-substitute restored except as to head 8 of damages.

Orders

  • Damages awarded under heads one to seven sustained.
  • Claim for damages under head eight (personal injury from falling off roof) refused.