Richardson v. Beattie [1923] ScotLR 467 (22 May 1923)

Richardson v. Beattie [1923] ScotLR 467 (22 May 1923)

Averments that the defender knowingly employed an incapable boy to manage a restive horse, resulting in injury, are relevant to infer fault; the illegality of employing a child under twelve does not exclude a delictual claim for injury, as the claim is not based on contract but on fault.

Citation
[1923] ScotLR 467
Parties
Pursuer: William Richardson (as tutor of his pupil son Robert Richardson); Defender: James Beattie
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 May 1923
Procedural Posture
Reparation (damages) Action / Plea to Relevancy; Interlocutory Appeal (reclaiming Motion)
Outcome
Defender's plea to relevancy repelled; interlocutor adhered to; case to proceed to trial.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Liability for Animals, Employment of Children, Illegality and Delict, Fellow Servant Doctrine
Tort Employment Law Negligence Liability for Animals Employment of Children Illegality and Delict Fellow Servant Doctrine

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

William Richardson (as tutor of his pupil son Robert Richardson)

Pursuer

James Beattie

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation (damages) Action / Plea to Relevancy; Interlocutory Appeal (reclaiming Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether averments of negligence in employing an incapable boy to manage a restive horse are relevant to infer fault against the owner
  2. 2 Whether illegality of employing a child under twelve excludes a delictual claim for injury
  3. 3 Whether the fellow-servant doctrine applies to exclude liability in these circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Averments that the defender knowingly employed an incapable boy to manage a restive horse, resulting in injury, are relevant to infer fault; the illegality of employing a child under twelve does not exclude a delictual claim for injury, as the claim is not based on contract but on fault.

Court Disposition

Defender's plea to relevancy repelled; interlocutor adhered to; case to proceed to trial.

Orders

  • Repel defender's plea as to irrelevancy of pursuer's averments.
  • Approve issue for trial as proposed by pursuer.