Adair and Others v. David Colville & Sons, Ltd [1924] ScotLR 623 (17 July 1924)

Adair and Others v. David Colville & Sons, Ltd [1924] ScotLR 623 (17 July 1924)

By majority, the Court held that no sufficient ground was shown for impugning the questions put to the jury. The Sheriff was entitled to put the questions he considered crucial, and in the absence of a record of proceedings, the sufficiency of the questions could not be reviewed. Even if the Sheriff erred in law, this was not a fundamental nullity justifying reduction. The Lord Justice-Clerk dissented, holding the omission of a negligence question was a fatal flaw rendering the proceedings null and a miscarriage of justice.

Citation
[1924] ScotLR 623
Parties
Pursuers/appellants: Mrs Jeanie M'Gliie or Adair and others (widow and children of Robert Adair); Defenders/respondents: David Colville & Sons, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 July 1924
Procedural Posture
Action of Reduction (civil Appeal) / Appeal to Inner House, Court of Session (second Division, Before Seven Judges)
Outcome
Action for reduction dismissed; verdict and decree for defenders stand (majority decision).
Legal Topics
Reduction of Verdict, Jury Trial Procedure, Common Law Negligence, Employers' Liability Act, Miscarriage of Justice, Sheriff Court Procedure
Civil Procedure Tort Law Employment Law Reduction of Verdict Jury Trial Procedure Common Law Negligence Employers' Liability Act Miscarriage of Justice +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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Jeanie M'Gliie or Adair and others (widow and children of Robert Adair)

Pursuers/appellants

David Colville & Sons, Limited

Defenders/respondents

Procedural Posture

Action of Reduction (civil Appeal) / Appeal to Inner House, Court of Session (second Division, Before Seven Judges)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sheriff failed to properly put the pursuers' common law case to the jury by omitting a question on the defenders' negligence
  2. 2 Whether such omission constituted a fundamental nullity and miscarriage of justice justifying reduction of the verdict and decree
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a record of proceedings precluded review by reduction

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Court held that no sufficient ground was shown for impugning the questions put to the jury. The Sheriff was entitled to put the questions he considered crucial, and in the absence of a record of proceedings, the sufficiency of the questions could not be reviewed. Even if the Sheriff erred in law, this was not a fundamental nullity justifying reduction. The Lord Justice-Clerk dissented, holding the omission of a negligence question was a fatal flaw rendering the proceedings null and a miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Action for reduction dismissed; verdict and decree for defenders stand (majority decision).

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary affirmed.