Williamson v. North of Scotland and Orkney and Shetland Steam Navigation Co. [1916] ScotLR 433 (25 February 1916)

Williamson v. North of Scotland and Orkney and Shetland Steam Navigation Co. [1916] ScotLR 433 (25 February 1916)

The defenders failed to do what was reasonably sufficient to give the pursuer notice of the condition limiting liability, as the condition was printed in very small type without any distinguishing features or adequate notice. Therefore, the condition was not incorporated into the contract of carriage, and the defenders remained liable for their negligence.

Citation
[1916] ScotLR 433
Parties
Pursuer: Mitchell Humphrey Williamson; Defenders: North of Scotland and Orkney and Shetland Steam Navigation Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 February 1916
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Note) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
appeal dismissed; interlocutor adhered to
Legal Topics
Carrier Liability, Notice of Contractual Terms, Limitation of Liability, Personal Injury, Negligence, Contractual Exclusion Clauses
Tort Contract Transportation Law Carrier Liability Notice of Contractual Terms Limitation of Liability Personal Injury Negligence +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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mitchell Humphrey Williamson

Pursuer

North of Scotland and Orkney and Shetland Steam Navigation Company

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Note) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the steamship company was exempted from liability for personal injuries by a condition printed on the ticket
  2. 2 Whether the company took reasonable steps to bring the condition to the passenger's notice
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer was contributorily negligent

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders failed to do what was reasonably sufficient to give the pursuer notice of the condition limiting liability, as the condition was printed in very small type without any distinguishing features or adequate notice. Therefore, the condition was not incorporated into the contract of carriage, and the defenders remained liable for their negligence.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; interlocutor adhered to

Orders

  • Defenders found liable for damages for personal injuries to the pursuer
  • Condition limiting liability on ticket held not binding due to insufficient notice