McCallum v S & D Properties (Commercial) Ltd & Ors [1999] ScotCS 299 (15 December 1999)

McCallum v S & D Properties (Commercial) Ltd & Ors [1999] ScotCS 299 (15 December 1999)

The pursuer's pleadings were irrelevant as they failed to aver exclusive management and control for res ipsa loquitur against the first and second defenders, did not specify knowledge or foreseeability of the defect, and did not relate proposed inspection and maintenance intervals to normal practice or justification. The lease did not leave sufficient control or responsibility with the landlord to impose liability. The cases of fault against all defenders were therefore irrelevant and the action was dismissed.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 299
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Margaret Elizabeth McCallum; First Defender: S & D Properties (Commercial) Limited; Second Defender: Second Defender; Third Defender: Third Defender
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Reparation (personal Injury) / Procedure Roll (plea to Relevancy)
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Occupiers' Liability (scotland) Act 1960, Landlord's Liability, Lease Construction, Res Ipsa Loquitur
Tort Landlord and Tenant Occupiers' Liability Negligence Duty of Care Occupiers' Liability (scotland) Act 1960 Landlord's Liability Lease Construction +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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Margaret Elizabeth McCallum

Pursuer

S & D Properties (Commercial) Limited

First Defender

Second Defender

Second Defender

Third Defender

Third Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation (personal Injury) / Procedure Roll (plea to Relevancy)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's pleadings disclosed a relevant case of fault against each defender for injuries caused by a falling stone panel from shop premises.
  2. 2 Whether the maxim res ipsa loquitur applied to any defender.
  3. 3 Whether the lease terms imposed a duty of care on the landlord (first defenders) towards the pursuer.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's pleadings were irrelevant as they failed to aver exclusive management and control for res ipsa loquitur against the first and second defenders, did not specify knowledge or foreseeability of the defect, and did not relate proposed inspection and maintenance intervals to normal practice or justification. The lease did not leave sufficient control or responsibility with the landlord to impose liability. The cases of fault against all defenders were therefore irrelevant and the action was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Sustain the first plea-in-law for each defender
  • Dismiss the action