Cowan v The Hopetoun House Preservation Trust & Ors [2013] ScotCS CSOH_9 (17 January 2013)

Cowan v The Hopetoun House Preservation Trust & Ors [2013] ScotCS CSOH_9 (17 January 2013)

The ha-ha, while a permanent feature, was unusual and concealed in the dark, and bringing the public onto the premises at night created a foreseeable risk. The defenders failed to give clear directions to all members of the group, breaching their duty of care. However, the pursuer was contributorily negligent for leaving the path and not keeping a proper lookout.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSOH_9
Parties
Pursuer: John Cowan; Defenders: The Hopetoun House Preservation Trust and Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim (civil) / Proof on Liability
Outcome
Defenders found liable for the pursuer's accident, subject to 75% deduction for contributory negligence.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Obvious Dangers, Contributory Negligence, Occupiers Liability (scotland) Act 1960
Tort Law Occupiers' Liability Duty of Care Obvious Dangers Contributory Negligence Occupiers Liability (scotland) Act 1960

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Cowan

Pursuer

The Hopetoun House Preservation Trust and Others

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim (civil) / Proof on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ha-ha constituted a danger giving rise to a duty of care under common law and the Occupiers Liability (Scotland) Act 1960
  2. 2 Whether the defenders breached their duty of care to the pursuer
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer was contributorily negligent

Ratio Decidendi

The ha-ha, while a permanent feature, was unusual and concealed in the dark, and bringing the public onto the premises at night created a foreseeable risk. The defenders failed to give clear directions to all members of the group, breaching their duty of care. However, the pursuer was contributorily negligent for leaving the path and not keeping a proper lookout.

Court Disposition

Defenders found liable for the pursuer's accident, subject to 75% deduction for contributory negligence.

Orders

  • Decree for agreed sum of £35,000 less 75% for contributory negligence.
  • Question of expenses reserved.