Glasgow Corporation v. Barclay, Curle, & Co., Ltd [1922] ScotLR 329 (18 March 1922)

Glasgow Corporation v. Barclay, Curle, & Co., Ltd [1922] ScotLR 329 (18 March 1922)

The defenders' use of the streets, though causing exceptional wear and tear, did not amount to an abuse or public nuisance, nor was negligence established. The damage was attributable to legitimate use in the context of Glasgow's industrial traffic, and the pursuers failed to prove fault or actionable nuisance....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1922] ScotLR 329
Parties
Pursuer: Glasgow Corporation; Defender: Barclay, Curle, & Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 March 1922
Procedural Posture
Action of Damages (reparation) at Common Law / Inner House, First Division, Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Lord Ordinary's Decision
Outcome
Defenders assoilzied (absolved from liability); pursuers' claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Liability for Damage to Public Streets, Extraordinary Traffic, Public Nuisance, Negligence, Common Law Liability, Use and Abuse of Public Highways
Tort Law Public Law Local Government Law Liability for Damage to Public Streets Extraordinary Traffic Public Nuisance Negligence Common Law Liability +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glasgow Corporation

Pursuer

Barclay, Curle, & Company, Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Action of Damages (reparation) at Common Law / Inner House, First Division, Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Lord Ordinary's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders are liable at common law for extraordinary damage to public streets caused by abnormally heavy traffic in the absence of statutory remedy
  2. 2 Whether the defenders' use of the streets amounted to an abuse or only to exceptional wear and tear
  3. 3 Whether negligence or public nuisance was established

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders' use of the streets, though causing exceptional wear and tear, did not amount to an abuse or public nuisance, nor was negligence established. The damage was attributable to legitimate use in the context of Glasgow's industrial traffic, and the pursuers failed to prove fault or actionable nuisance. Accordingly, no liability for damages arises at common law in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Defenders assoilzied (absolved from liability); pursuers' claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Action dismissed; defenders assoilzied from conclusions of the summons.