Jack v. Rivet, Bolt, and Nut Co., Ltd [1904] ScotLR 41_429 (10 March 1904)

Jack v. Rivet, Bolt, and Nut Co., Ltd [1904] ScotLR 41_429 (10 March 1904)

The Court held that while the relevancy of the action was doubtful, it could not be said to be irrelevant, and due to the narrow and delicate factual and legal issues, proof should be led before the Sheriff rather than by jury trial.

Citation
[1904] ScotLR 41_429
Parties
Pursuer/appellant: Catherine Jack (with Isaac Jack, curator and administrator-in-law); Defender/respondent: Rivet, Bolt, and Nut Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 March 1904
Procedural Posture
Reparation (personal Injury) / Appeal From Sheriff Court Interlocutor Allowing Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Remit to Sheriff-Substitute for proof as allowed.
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Factory Safety, Contributory Negligence, Statutory Interpretation
Tort Employment Law Statutory Duty Employer's Liability Factory Safety Contributory Negligence Statutory Interpretation

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

Parties

Catherine Jack (with Isaac Jack, curator and administrator-in-law)

Pursuer/appellant

Rivet, Bolt, and Nut Company, Limited

Defender/respondent

Procedural Posture

Reparation (personal Injury) / Appeal From Sheriff Court Interlocutor Allowing Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer breached statutory and common law duties to fence dangerous machinery under the Factory and Workshop Act 1901, sec. 10
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's own negligence contributed to the accident and bars or reduces recovery
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings are relevant to proceed to proof

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that while the relevancy of the action was doubtful, it could not be said to be irrelevant, and due to the narrow and delicate factual and legal issues, proof should be led before the Sheriff rather than by jury trial.

Court Disposition

Remit to Sheriff-Substitute for proof as allowed.

Orders

  • Cause remitted to the Sheriff-Substitute for proof before answer.