Hosie v. Fred. M. Walker, Ltd [1906] ScotLR 44_151 (29 November 1906)

Hosie v. Fred. M. Walker, Ltd [1906] ScotLR 44_151 (29 November 1906)

The pursuer's injury occurred while he was using the machine for a purpose outside his ordered work, namely making a scraper, not planing wood as instructed. There was no order from a superintendent to perform the act leading to injury, nor was the lack of brushes a defect in plant within the meaning of the Employers' Liability Act 1880. The facts did not disclose a relevant case of common law negligence or statutory breach. Accordingly, the action was dismissed as irrelevant.

Citation
[1906] ScotLR 44_151
Parties
Pursuer: James Hosie; Defender: Fred. M. Walker, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
29 November 1906
Procedural Posture
Reparation (personal Injury) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session, Inner House, Second Division
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Employers' Liability, Personal Injury, Master and Servant, Defective Plant, Statutory Duty, Common Law Negligence
Tort Employment Law Employers' Liability Personal Injury Master and Servant Defective Plant Statutory Duty Common Law Negligence

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

Parties

James Hosie

Pursuer

Fred. M. Walker, Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation (personal Injury) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session, Inner House, Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to provide sufficient brushes constitutes a defect in plant under the Employers' Liability Act 1880
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer was injured in the course of his employment or while doing something outside his ordered work
  3. 3 Whether insufficient fencing of the machine constituted actionable negligence at common law or under statute

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's injury occurred while he was using the machine for a purpose outside his ordered work, namely making a scraper, not planing wood as instructed. There was no order from a superintendent to perform the act leading to injury, nor was the lack of brushes a defect in plant within the meaning of the Employers' Liability Act 1880. The facts did not disclose a relevant case of common law negligence or statutory breach. Accordingly, the action was dismissed as irrelevant.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • Interlocutors of the Sheriff and Sheriff-Substitute recalled
  • Defenders' first plea-in-law sustained