M'carten v. M'robbie [1909] ScotLR 776 (22 May 1909)

M'carten v. M'robbie [1909] ScotLR 776 (22 May 1909)

The pursuer's averment that the employer knowingly selected an incompetent and inexperienced man is relevant and sufficient to go to proof before a jury. The connection between incompetence and the accident, though tenuous, is a matter for the jury. The averments regarding breach of statutory duty to employ a third man are irrelevant, as the duty is owed to the public, not to fellow servants.

Citation
[1909] ScotLR 776
Parties
Pursuer: Bernard M'Carten; Defender: Robert M'Robbie
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 May 1909
Procedural Posture
Action of Damages for Personal Injuries / Interlocutory Appeal on Relevancy, Approval of Issue for Jury Trial
Outcome
Defender's objection to relevancy repelled; issue approved for jury trial.
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Negligence, Master and Servant, Statutory Duty, Personal Injury
Tort Employment Law Employer's Liability Negligence Master and Servant Statutory Duty Personal Injury

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bernard M'Carten

Pursuer

Robert M'Robbie

Defender

Procedural Posture

Action of Damages for Personal Injuries / Interlocutory Appeal on Relevancy, Approval of Issue for Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer is liable for injuries caused by knowingly employing an incompetent and inexperienced servant.
  2. 2 Whether breach of statutory duty to employ a third man is relevant to the pursuer's injury.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averment that the employer knowingly selected an incompetent and inexperienced man is relevant and sufficient to go to proof before a jury. The connection between incompetence and the accident, though tenuous, is a matter for the jury. The averments regarding breach of statutory duty to employ a third man are irrelevant, as the duty is owed to the public, not to fellow servants.

Court Disposition

Defender's objection to relevancy repelled; issue approved for jury trial.

Orders

  • Case to proceed to jury trial on the issue of employer's liability for knowingly employing an incompetent servant.