Taylor (Poor) v. Sutherland [1910] ScotLR 541 (18 March 1910)

Taylor (Poor) v. Sutherland [1910] ScotLR 541 (18 March 1910)

The jury's answer to the question of fault specified conduct which did not amount to legal negligence; thus, the verdict must be applied for the defender, as the pursuer failed to obtain findings sufficient in law to support his claim.

Citation
[1910] ScotLR 541
Parties
Pursuer/appellant: William Forbes Taylor (Poor); Defender/respondent: George Sutherland
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 March 1910
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Sheriff Court Jury Verdict (personal Injury/employer's Liability) / Appeal to Court of Session Inner House, First Division
Outcome
Appeal refused; verdict applied for defender; pursuer liable in expenses since 22nd March 1909.
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Negligence, Jury Trial Procedure, Sheriff Courts (scotland) Act 1907, Application of Jury Verdicts, Ambiguous or Inconsistent Verdicts
Tort Law Employment Law Civil Procedure Employer's Liability Negligence Jury Trial Procedure Sheriff Courts (scotland) Act 1907 Application of Jury Verdicts +1 more

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Forbes Taylor (Poor)

Pursuer/appellant

George Sutherland

Defender/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Sheriff Court Jury Verdict (personal Injury/employer's Liability) / Appeal to Court of Session Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury's verdict was ambiguous, inconsistent, or unappliable under the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907, section 31
  2. 2 Whether the jury's finding amounted to legal fault or negligence on the part of the defender
  3. 3 Whether the Sheriff-Substitute correctly applied the verdict for the defender

Ratio Decidendi

The jury's answer to the question of fault specified conduct which did not amount to legal negligence; thus, the verdict must be applied for the defender, as the pursuer failed to obtain findings sufficient in law to support his claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; verdict applied for defender; pursuer liable in expenses since 22nd March 1909.

Orders

  • The verdict of the jury is applied as a verdict for the defender.
  • The pursuer is found liable to the defender in expenses since 22nd March 1909.