M'Kibbin v. Glasgow Corporation [1920] ScotLR 476 (27 May 1920)

M'Kibbin v. Glasgow Corporation [1920] ScotLR 476 (27 May 1920)

The Corporation owed a duty to keep the streets reasonably safe for all users, including those with disabilities. There was evidence upon which the jury could find negligence in leaving the hydrant open and unguarded. The judge was not required to give the requested direction after the charge, and the direction sought was too broad and not a correct statement of law. The verdict was supported by evidence and should stand.

Citation
[1920] ScotLR 476
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Euphemia Leitch or M'Kibbin; Defenders: Corporation of the City of Glasgow
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 May 1920
Procedural Posture
Reparation (personal Injury Negligence) / Appeal on Bill of Exceptions and Motion for New Trial After Jury Verdict
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; verdict for pursuer affirmed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Duty of Care, Public Safety, Liability of Public Authorities, Jury Directions
Tort Law Public Authority Liability Negligence Contributory Negligence Duty of Care Public Safety Liability of Public Authorities Jury Directions

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Euphemia Leitch or M'Kibbin

Pursuer

Corporation of the City of Glasgow

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Reparation (personal Injury Negligence) / Appeal on Bill of Exceptions and Motion for New Trial After Jury Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Corporation of Glasgow was negligent in leaving an open hydrant on a public pavement, causing injury to a partially blind pedestrian
  2. 2 Whether the physical disability of the pursuer affects the defenders' duty of care or liability
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in refusing to give a specific direction to the jury regarding the standard of care owed to blind persons

Ratio Decidendi

The Corporation owed a duty to keep the streets reasonably safe for all users, including those with disabilities. There was evidence upon which the jury could find negligence in leaving the hydrant open and unguarded. The judge was not required to give the requested direction after the charge, and the direction sought was too broad and not a correct statement of law. The verdict was supported by evidence and should stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; verdict for pursuer affirmed

Orders

  • Rule for new trial discharged
  • Bill of exceptions disallowed