Hood v. Anchor Line (Henderson Brothers) Ltd [1916] ScotLR 429 (25 February 1916)

Hood v. Anchor Line (Henderson Brothers) Ltd [1916] ScotLR 429 (25 February 1916)

The pleadings disclose a relevant issue of fact as to whether the pursuer had notice of and assented to the contractual conditions limiting liability. This issue cannot be determined without proof. The proper course is to allow a proof before answer limited to the terms and conditions of the contract of carriage between the parties.

Citation
[1916] ScotLR 429
Parties
Pursuer: John Hood; Defender: Anchor Line (Henderson Brothers) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 February 1916
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Appeal on Pleadings and Procedure
Outcome
Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; proof before answer allowed on terms and conditions of contract of carriage.
Legal Topics
Carriage of Passengers, Limitation of Liability, Notice of Contractual Terms, Personal Injury, Contractual Construction
Contract Tort Transport Carriage of Passengers Limitation of Liability Notice of Contractual Terms Personal Injury Contractual Construction

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 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Hood

Pursuer

Anchor Line (Henderson Brothers) Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Appeal on Pleadings and Procedure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the shipowner's liability for passenger injury can be limited by conditions printed on the ticket when the passenger alleges lack of notice or assent to those conditions.
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings disclose a relevant case requiring proof or should be dismissed as irrelevant.

Ratio Decidendi

The pleadings disclose a relevant issue of fact as to whether the pursuer had notice of and assented to the contractual conditions limiting liability. This issue cannot be determined without proof. The proper course is to allow a proof before answer limited to the terms and conditions of the contract of carriage between the parties.

Court Disposition

Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; proof before answer allowed on terms and conditions of contract of carriage.

Orders

  • Recall the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor of 20th July 1915.
  • Remit to the Lord Ordinary before answer to allow parties a proof of their averments as to the terms and conditions of the contract of carriage between them.