Dalgleish v Glasgow Corp [1975] ScotCS CSIH_2 (03 December 1975)

Dalgleish v Glasgow Corp [1975] ScotCS CSIH_2 (03 December 1975)

The pursuer failed to prove that the defenders had a duty to inspect or secure the window absent knowledge that it was unlocked, and failed to establish that a reasonable inspection regime would have prevented the accident. The defenders were entitled to assume that an accompanying adult would take obvious precautions. No liability attaches to the defenders in the circumstances.

Citation
[1975] ScotCS CSIH_2
Parties
Pursuer: Dalgleish; Defender: Glasgow Corporation
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 December 1975
Procedural Posture
Delict (personal Injury) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Before the Second Division, Court of Session
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; defenders assoilzied (absolved from liability).
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability (scotland) Act 1960, Duty of Care, Foreseeability, Inspection Duties, Causation, Assessment of Damages, Loss of Amenities, Loss of Expectation of Life
Tort Law Occupiers' Liability Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability (scotland) Act 1960 Duty of Care Foreseeability Inspection Duties Causation +3 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dalgleish

Pursuer

Glasgow Corporation

Defender

Procedural Posture

Delict (personal Injury) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Before the Second Division, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders (Glasgow Corporation) owed a duty to inspect and secure the window to prevent injury to children under the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960.
  2. 2 Whether the defenders' failure to inspect or secure the window was causally connected to the injury.
  3. 3 Whether the presence of an adult with the child negated the defenders' duty of care.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove that the defenders had a duty to inspect or secure the window absent knowledge that it was unlocked, and failed to establish that a reasonable inspection regime would have prevented the accident. The defenders were entitled to assume that an accompanying adult would take obvious precautions. No liability attaches to the defenders in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; defenders assoilzied (absolved from liability).

Orders

  • No damages awarded.
  • Pursuer's case dismissed.