Morton v William Dixon Ltd [1909] ScotCS CSIH_5 (19 March 1909)

Morton v William Dixon Ltd [1909] ScotCS CSIH_5 (19 March 1909)

There was insufficient evidence to establish employer negligence, as the alleged precaution was neither common nor obviously necessary, and the workmen committee had not suggested it. The jury's verdict was against the weight of evidence, warranting a new trial.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1909] ScotCS CSIH_5
Parties
Pursuer: Morton; Defender: William Dixon, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 March 1909
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Motion for New Trial
Outcome
new trial granted
Legal Topics
Employer Negligence, Workplace Safety, Personal Injury
Tort Employment Law Employer Negligence Workplace Safety Personal Injury

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Morton

Pursuer

William Dixon, Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Motion for New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer was negligent in failing to provide a protective appliance at the pit.
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's injury was caused by employer negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

There was insufficient evidence to establish employer negligence, as the alleged precaution was neither common nor obviously necessary, and the workmen committee had not suggested it. The jury's verdict was against the weight of evidence, warranting a new trial.

Court Disposition

new trial granted

Orders

  • A new trial is ordered.