Wolfson v. Forrester's Trustees [1910] ScotLR 525 (18 March 1910)

Wolfson v. Forrester's Trustees [1910] ScotLR 525 (18 March 1910)

The first claim (flooding in 1908) was irrelevant as there was no breach of the landlord's obligation to provide wind and water tight premises, the defect was too remote, and the risk was as patent to the tenant as to the landlord. The landlord was not liable for the negligence of a competent independent contractor. The second claim (flooding in 1909) was relevant on averment as it alleged notice and failure to repair, thus proof before answer was allowed.

Citation
[1910] ScotLR 525
Parties
Pursuer (appellant): Solomon Wolfson; Defenders (respondents): Andrew Forrester, W.S., and others, Trustees of the late William Forrester of Glenmiln
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 March 1910
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House, First Division
Outcome
First claim dismissed; proof before answer allowed on second claim
Legal Topics
Lease Obligations, Reparation (damages), Negligence, Flooding, Obligation to Keep Premises Wind and Water Tight, Liability for Independent Contractors
Landlord and Tenant Tort/delict Lease Obligations Reparation (damages) Negligence Flooding Obligation to Keep Premises Wind and Water Tight Liability for Independent Contractors

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

Parties

Solomon Wolfson

Pursuer (appellant)

Andrew Forrester, W.S., and others, Trustees of the late William Forrester of Glenmiln

Defenders (respondents)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord breached the obligation to provide wind and water tight premises under the lease
  2. 2 Whether the landlord was negligent in failing to repair defective pipes after notice
  3. 3 Whether the landlord is liable for the negligence of independent contractors (plumbers)

Ratio Decidendi

The first claim (flooding in 1908) was irrelevant as there was no breach of the landlord's obligation to provide wind and water tight premises, the defect was too remote, and the risk was as patent to the tenant as to the landlord. The landlord was not liable for the negligence of a competent independent contractor. The second claim (flooding in 1909) was relevant on averment as it alleged notice and failure to repair, thus proof before answer was allowed.

Court Disposition

First claim dismissed; proof before answer allowed on second claim

Orders

  • Interlocutors of Sheriff and Sheriff-Substitute recalled
  • Crave for £39, 5s. dismissed