Ross v. M'Callum and Others [1922] ScotLR 221 (03 March 1922)

Ross v. M'Callum and Others [1922] ScotLR 221 (03 March 1922)

The pursuer's averments, if proved, were sufficient to entitle a jury to find that the defender was at fault in creating a concealed danger or trap by substituting petrol for water in a pail customarily used for water, without warning, and that the accident was a natural and probable result of that negligence. The case was sufficiently relevant to go to proof before a jury.

Citation
[1922] ScotLR 221
Parties
Pursuer: Alexander Ross; Defender: Peter M'Callum (and his trustees and executors)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 March 1922
Procedural Posture
Reparation (damages for Death) / Relevancy (plea to Dismiss Action as Irrelevant); Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Allowance of Jury Issue
Outcome
Reclaiming note refused; issue allowed to go to jury trial; court adhered to Lord Ordinary's decision.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care to Licencees, Occupier's Liability, Trap Doctrine, Foreseeability, Act of Third Party
Tort Delict Personal Injury Negligence Duty of Care to Licencees Occupier's Liability Trap Doctrine Foreseeability +1 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Ross

Pursuer

Peter M'Callum (and his trustees and executors)

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation (damages for Death) / Relevancy (plea to Dismiss Action as Irrelevant); Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Allowance of Jury Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the owner of premises owes a duty of care to a licencee to prevent injury from a concealed danger or trap
  2. 2 Whether the facts averred disclose a relevant case of negligence against the owner for the death of the pursuer's son
  3. 3 Whether the intervention of a third party breaks the chain of causation

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments, if proved, were sufficient to entitle a jury to find that the defender was at fault in creating a concealed danger or trap by substituting petrol for water in a pail customarily used for water, without warning, and that the accident was a natural and probable result of that negligence. The case was sufficiently relevant to go to proof before a jury.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming note refused; issue allowed to go to jury trial; court adhered to Lord Ordinary's decision.

Orders

  • Case to proceed to jury trial on the adjusted issue.