Mechan v. Watson [1906] ScotLR 44_28 (03 November 1906)

Mechan v. Watson [1906] ScotLR 44_28 (03 November 1906)

The action was dismissed as irrelevant because the pursuer failed to aver sufficient specification of the alleged defect (age of child, width of gap, duration of tenancy, knowledge of defect), and because any defect in the original construction was as obvious to the tenant as to the landlord at the time of letting, negating any duty of care or negligence on the landlord's part.

Citation
[1906] ScotLR 44_28
Parties
Pursuer/appellant: William Meehan (as tutor and administrator-in-law for his pupil child Thomas Mechan); Defender/respondent: John R. Watson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 November 1906
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (reparation/damages) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House, First Division
Outcome
action dismissed as irrelevant
Legal Topics
Landlord's Duty of Care, Defective Premises, Specification of Pleadings, Common Stair Liability, Original Construction Vs. Repair, Relevancy of Averments
Tort Landlord and Tenant Negligence Landlord's Duty of Care Defective Premises Specification of Pleadings Common Stair Liability Original Construction Vs. Repair +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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Meehan (as tutor and administrator-in-law for his pupil child Thomas Mechan)

Pursuer/appellant

John R. Watson

Defender/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (reparation/damages) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a landlord is liable in damages for injuries to a tenant's child caused by an alleged original defect in the construction of a common stair railing.
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's pleadings are sufficiently specific to constitute a relevant case of negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The action was dismissed as irrelevant because the pursuer failed to aver sufficient specification of the alleged defect (age of child, width of gap, duration of tenancy, knowledge of defect), and because any defect in the original construction was as obvious to the tenant as to the landlord at the time of letting, negating any duty of care or negligence on the landlord's part.

Court Disposition

action dismissed as irrelevant

Orders

  • Action dismissed as irrelevant.