Buchanan v. Glasgow Corporation [1923] ScotLR 504 (01 June 1923)

Buchanan v. Glasgow Corporation [1923] ScotLR 504 (01 June 1923)

The pursuer's averments, though lacking in precision, were sufficient to justify inquiry as to whether the defenders were negligent in failing to repair a dangerous pavement defect that caused injury. The question of whether the duty of care extended to a child playing on the pavement was a factual matter for trial, not a basis for dismissal at the pleading stage.

Citation
[1923] ScotLR 504
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Nathalie Keegans or Kennedy or Buchanan, as tutrix and administratrix-in-law of Annie Kennedy; Defender: Corporation of the City of Glasgow
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 June 1923
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (reparation/negligence) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House
Outcome
Appeal sustained; interlocutor recalled; inquiry (issue) allowed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Defective Premises, Personal Injury, Pleadings—relevancy, Statutory Duty, Children—liability of Public Authorities
Tort Public Liability Local Government Law Negligence Duty of Care Defective Premises Personal Injury Pleadings—relevancy +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Nathalie Keegans or Kennedy or Buchanan, as tutrix and administratrix-in-law of Annie Kennedy

Pursuer

Corporation of the City of Glasgow

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (reparation/negligence) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's averments disclosed a relevant case of negligence against the defenders for failure to repair a dangerous pavement defect.
  2. 2 Whether the duration and nature of the pavement defect were sufficiently specified in the pleadings to justify inquiry.
  3. 3 Whether the duty of care owed by the defenders extended to a child injured while playing on the pavement.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments, though lacking in precision, were sufficient to justify inquiry as to whether the defenders were negligent in failing to repair a dangerous pavement defect that caused injury. The question of whether the duty of care extended to a child playing on the pavement was a factual matter for trial, not a basis for dismissal at the pleading stage.

Court Disposition

Appeal sustained; interlocutor recalled; inquiry (issue) allowed.

Orders

  • The interlocutor appealed against is recalled.
  • An issue is approved for inquiry.