Kennedy v. Shotts Iron Co., Ltd, and Others [1913] ScotLR 885 (17 July 1913)

Kennedy v. Shotts Iron Co., Ltd, and Others [1913] ScotLR 885 (17 July 1913)

Liability for the accident rests with the Shotts Iron Company because they had possession and control of the stair and railing at the time of the accident, and thus owed a duty of care to lawful visitors, including the pursuer's child. Inglis' trustees, having parted with possession and control, retained only bare ownership and were not liable.

Citation
[1913] ScotLR 885
Parties
Pursuer: John Kennedy (as tutor and administrator-in-law of Jane Kennedy); Defender: Shotts Iron Company, Limited; Additional Defenders (inglis' Trustees): William James Wood and another, trustees and executors of the late Robert Alexander Inglis
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 July 1913
Procedural Posture
Action of Damages (reparation) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, First Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment for pursuer affirmed
Legal Topics
Landlord and Tenant Liability, Negligence, Occupier's Liability, Common Property, Reparation (damages)
Tort Property Law Landlord and Tenant Liability Negligence Occupier's Liability Common Property Reparation (damages)

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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Kennedy (as tutor and administrator-in-law of Jane Kennedy)

Pursuer

Shotts Iron Company, Limited

Defender

William James Wood and another, trustees and executors of the late Robert Alexander Inglis

Additional Defenders (inglis' Trustees)

Procedural Posture

Action of Damages (reparation) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Shotts Iron Company or Inglis' trustees (landlord or mid-tenant) were liable for injuries caused by a defective railing on a common stair
  2. 2 Whether liability to a visitor (not a tenant) arises for such defects
  3. 3 Whether possession and control of the stair determined liability

Ratio Decidendi

Liability for the accident rests with the Shotts Iron Company because they had possession and control of the stair and railing at the time of the accident, and thus owed a duty of care to lawful visitors, including the pursuer's child. Inglis' trustees, having parted with possession and control, retained only bare ownership and were not liable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment for pursuer affirmed

Orders

  • Shotts Iron Company held liable to pay £60 in damages to the pursuer
  • Shotts Iron Company to pay expenses of the pursuer and of Inglis' trustees (additional defenders)