Wood & Co. v. A. & A. Y. MACKAY [1906] ScotLR 43_458 (13 March 1906)

Wood & Co. v. A. & A. Y. MACKAY [1906] ScotLR 43_458 (13 March 1906)

Shipowners did not warrant the rope slings, which were not part of the ship's permanent equipment, but supplied them only to the approbation of the stevedore. The stevedore's liability to his employee was based on his own negligence in failing to inspect and reject defective slings. As the criteria of liability in the two actions were different (negligence vs. contract), the stevedore could not claim relief from the shipowner. The defenders were therefore assoilzied (absolved) from liability.

Citation
[1906] ScotLR 43_458
Parties
Pursuer (stevedore): Wood & Company; Defender (shipowner): A. & A. Y. Mackay
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 March 1906
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract/reparation) / Appeal (inner House, First Division)
Outcome
Defenders assoilzied (absolved); defenders entitled to expenses.
Legal Topics
Implied Warranty, Negligence, Breach of Contract, Supply of Equipment, Employers' Liability, Relief Action
Contract Tort (reparation) Maritime Law Implied Warranty Negligence Breach of Contract Supply of Equipment Employers' Liability +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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wood & Company

Pursuer (stevedore)

A. & A. Y. Mackay

Defender (shipowner)

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract/reparation) / Appeal (inner House, First Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether shipowners warranted the fitness of rope slings supplied to stevedores for unloading cargo
  2. 2 Whether shipowners were liable to stevedores for damages paid to an injured employee under the Employers' Liability Act
  3. 3 Whether an action of relief was competent where the stevedore's liability was based on negligence and the claim against the shipowner was based on contract

Ratio Decidendi

Shipowners did not warrant the rope slings, which were not part of the ship's permanent equipment, but supplied them only to the approbation of the stevedore. The stevedore's liability to his employee was based on his own negligence in failing to inspect and reject defective slings. As the criteria of liability in the two actions were different (negligence vs. contract), the stevedore could not claim relief from the shipowner. The defenders were therefore assoilzied (absolved) from liability.

Court Disposition

Defenders assoilzied (absolved); defenders entitled to expenses.

Orders

  • Adhere to interlocutor assoilzieing defenders from conclusions of the summons.
  • Recall previous order as to expenses; find defenders entitled to expenses in both Inner and Outer House.