Reilly v. Greenfield Coat, and Brick Co., Ltd [1909] ScotLR 962 (16 July 1909)

Reilly v. Greenfield Coat, and Brick Co., Ltd [1909] ScotLR 962 (16 July 1909)

The defenders, having installed and operated an automatic tram line with unattended moving hutches across a road known to be used by the public (including children), created a dangerous situation and failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent injury. Their liability does not depend on the technical status of the road but on their knowledge of public use and the foreseeability of harm, particularly to children. The absence of adequate precautions constituted negligence, and neither the child's age nor the absence of a formal right-of-way absolved the defenders of liability.

Citation
[1909] ScotLR 962
Parties
Pursuer: Charles Reilly; Defender: Greenfield Coal and Brick Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 July 1909
Procedural Posture
Reparation (damages for Death by Negligence) / Inner House, First Division, Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment for pursuer adhered to.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Dangerous Machinery, Liability to Public, Children and Capacity, Contributory Negligence
Tort Delict Personal Injury Reparation Negligence Duty of Care Dangerous Machinery Liability to Public +2 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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Reilly

Pursuer

Greenfield Coal and Brick Company, Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation (damages for Death by Negligence) / Inner House, First Division, Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders owed a duty of care to the public (including children) using the road crossed by their tram line
  2. 2 Whether the defenders were negligent in failing to take precautions at the crossing
  3. 3 Whether the status of the road (public right-of-way or permissive use) affected liability

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders, having installed and operated an automatic tram line with unattended moving hutches across a road known to be used by the public (including children), created a dangerous situation and failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent injury. Their liability does not depend on the technical status of the road but on their knowledge of public use and the foreseeability of harm, particularly to children. The absence of adequate precautions constituted negligence, and neither the child's age nor the absence of a formal right-of-way absolved the defenders of liability.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment for pursuer adhered to.

Orders

  • Defenders to pay £50 in damages to the pursuer.
  • Defenders to pay expenses.