Gibb v. Edinburgh and District Tramways Co., Ltd [1911] ScotLR 431 (22 February 1911)

Gibb v. Edinburgh and District Tramways Co., Ltd [1911] ScotLR 431 (22 February 1911)

The pursuer's averments that the defenders failed to provide customary and reasonable guards on the tramcar, resulting in her injury, are relevant and disclose a case suitable for jury trial. The absence of such guards, where they are generally adopted and practicable, may constitute negligence. Approval by the Board of Trade does not preclude liability for negligence. The Lord Ordinary's decision to allow an issue and jury trial is affirmed.

Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Catherine Gibb; Defenders: Edinburgh and District Tramways Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 February 1911
Procedural Posture
Action of Damages for Personal Injury / Relevancy and Mode of Trial; Interlocutor on Issue; Reclaiming Motion
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor adhered to; issue allowed for jury trial.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Defective Structure, Public Safety, Proof and Jury Trial
Tort Personal Injury Transport Law Negligence Duty of Care Defective Structure Public Safety Proof and Jury Trial

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Catherine Gibb

Pursuer

Edinburgh and District Tramways Company, Limited

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Action of Damages for Personal Injury / Relevancy and Mode of Trial; Interlocutor on Issue; Reclaiming Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders were negligent in failing to guard or fence the tramway car, resulting in injury to the pursuer
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's averments disclosed a relevant case for proof or jury trial
  3. 3 Whether approval of the tramcar by the Board of Trade absolved the defenders of liability

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments that the defenders failed to provide customary and reasonable guards on the tramcar, resulting in her injury, are relevant and disclose a case suitable for jury trial. The absence of such guards, where they are generally adopted and practicable, may constitute negligence. Approval by the Board of Trade does not preclude liability for negligence. The Lord Ordinary's decision to allow an issue and jury trial is affirmed.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor adhered to; issue allowed for jury trial.

Orders

  • The Lord Ordinary's interlocutor is affirmed.
  • The pursuer is allowed an issue for jury trial.