Graham (ap) v. East of Scotland Water Authority [2002] ScotCS 30 (1st February, 2002)
The alleged danger was a permanent, obvious, and familiar feature of the landscape, and thus no duty to fence arose in law; further, the pursuer's pleadings failed to establish any causal connection between the defenders' alleged breach and the accident.
- Citation
- [2002] ScotCS 30
- Parties
- Pursuer: Lynne Patricia Graham; Defender: East of Scotland Water Authority
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Damages (occupiers' Liability) / Procedure Roll Debate on Relevancy (motion to Dismiss)
- Outcome
- Action dismissed as irrelevant
- Legal Topics
- Duty of Care of Occupiers, Obvious Dangers, Causation, Artificial Vs Natural Features, Relevancy of Pleadings
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lynne Patricia Graham
Pursuer
East of Scotland Water Authority
Defender
Procedural Posture
Civil Damages (occupiers' Liability) / Procedure Roll Debate on Relevancy (motion to Dismiss)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether occupiers owe a duty to fence obvious, permanent, and familiar features of land such as reservoirs and walls
- 2 Whether the pursuer's pleadings establish a relevant case on causation between the alleged danger and the accident
Ratio Decidendi
The alleged danger was a permanent, obvious, and familiar feature of the landscape, and thus no duty to fence arose in law; further, the pursuer's pleadings failed to establish any causal connection between the defenders' alleged breach and the accident.
Court Disposition
Action dismissed as irrelevant
Orders
- Defenders' first plea-in-law sustained
- Action dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment