Grant v. John Fleming & Co., Ltd [1914] ScotLR 187 (09 January 1914)

Grant v. John Fleming & Co., Ltd [1914] ScotLR 187 (09 January 1914)

The pursuer's averments, though not alleging knowledge of the defect by the proprietors, were sufficient to entitle him to inquiry and proof before answer as to whether there was fault or negligence in failing to provide safe access; the case was unsuitable for jury trial and should be remitted to the Sheriff for proof.

Citation
[1914] ScotLR 187
Parties
Pursuer: Edwin L. Grant (as tutor and administrator-in-law for his pupil daughter Agnes Grant); Defender: John Fleming & Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
09 January 1914
Procedural Posture
Reparation (damages for Personal Injury) / Appeal From Sheriff Court; Interlocutory Decision on Relevancy and Mode of Inquiry
Outcome
Defenders' objection to relevancy repelled; motion to remit to Sheriff sustained; jury trial disallowed; case remitted to Sheriff for proof before answer.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Occupiers' Liability, Duty of Care to Visitors, Liability for Defects in Property, Reparation for Personal Injury
Tort Property Law Negligence Occupiers' Liability Duty of Care to Visitors Liability for Defects in Property Reparation for Personal Injury

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

Parties

Edwin L. Grant (as tutor and administrator-in-law for his pupil daughter Agnes Grant)

Pursuer

John Fleming & Company, Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation (damages for Personal Injury) / Appeal From Sheriff Court; Interlocutory Decision on Relevancy and Mode of Inquiry

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's averments disclose a relevant case of fault or negligence against the proprietors for injuries to a child visitor on a common stair
  2. 2 Whether the duty of care owed by proprietors to children differs from that owed to adults
  3. 3 Whether the case is suitable for jury trial or should be remitted for proof before answer

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments, though not alleging knowledge of the defect by the proprietors, were sufficient to entitle him to inquiry and proof before answer as to whether there was fault or negligence in failing to provide safe access; the case was unsuitable for jury trial and should be remitted to the Sheriff for proof.

Court Disposition

Defenders' objection to relevancy repelled; motion to remit to Sheriff sustained; jury trial disallowed; case remitted to Sheriff for proof before answer.

Orders

  • Recalled Sheriff-Substitute's interlocutor in so far as it assigned a diet of proof for jury trial.
  • Affirmed interlocutor quoad ultra.