O'Brien v. Enrico, Arbib & Co. [1907] ScotLR 686 (31 May 1907)

O'Brien v. Enrico, Arbib & Co. [1907] ScotLR 686 (31 May 1907)

The defenders owed no duty of care to the pursuer, who was on board as a visitor to a crew member and not by invitation or for any business of the defenders. The act of the rigger in assisting her was outside the scope of his employment and a voluntary act of courtesy. The statutory regulations regarding gangways did not apply to the pursuer as she was not employed in loading, unloading, or coaling. Accordingly, the defenders were not liable for her injuries.

Citation
[1907] ScotLR 686
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Catherine Darroch or O'Brien; Defenders: Enrico, Arbib & Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
31 May 1907
Procedural Posture
Reparation (personal Injury) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session, Inner House, Second Division, After Proof
Outcome
defenders assoilzied (absolved); action dismissed
Legal Topics
Liability of Shipowners, Scope of Employment, Duty of Care to Visitors, Application of Statutory Regulations, Factory and Workshop Act 1901
Tort Employment Law Maritime Law Liability of Shipowners Scope of Employment Duty of Care to Visitors Application of Statutory Regulations Factory and Workshop Act 1901

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Catherine Darroch or O'Brien

Pursuer

Enrico, Arbib & Company

Defenders

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether shipowners owe a duty of care to a visitor (wife of crew member) injured while leaving the ship
  2. 2 Whether the act of the rigger (employee) in assisting the pursuer was within the scope of employment
  3. 3 Whether statutory regulations regarding gangways apply to visitors not employed in loading/unloading/coaling

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders owed no duty of care to the pursuer, who was on board as a visitor to a crew member and not by invitation or for any business of the defenders. The act of the rigger in assisting her was outside the scope of his employment and a voluntary act of courtesy. The statutory regulations regarding gangways did not apply to the pursuer as she was not employed in loading, unloading, or coaling. Accordingly, the defenders were not liable for her injuries.

Court Disposition

defenders assoilzied (absolved); action dismissed

Orders

  • Decree of absolvitor in favour of defenders
  • No damages awarded to pursuer