M'Fall v. Adams & Co. [1907] ScotLR 44_259 (09 January 1907)

M'Fall v. Adams & Co. [1907] ScotLR 44_259 (09 January 1907)

The defenders are not liable as Hill was lent to the Harvey Engineering Company, which had control over him during the operation; there was no arrangement or authority for use of the defenders' plant, and custom of trade does not impose liability in these circumstances.

Citation
[1907] ScotLR 44_259
Parties
Pursuer: John M'Fall; Defenders: James Adams & Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
09 January 1907
Procedural Posture
Reparation / Appeal Against Sheriff Court Interlocutor; Motion for Jury Trial; Argument on Relevancy
Outcome
action dismissed as irrelevant
Legal Topics
Master and Servant, Loan of Servant, Liability for Use of Plant, Custom of Trade
Tort Employment Law Master and Servant Loan of Servant Liability for Use of Plant Custom of Trade

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John M'Fall

Pursuer

James Adams & Company

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Reparation / Appeal Against Sheriff Court Interlocutor; Motion for Jury Trial; Argument on Relevancy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders are liable for injuries caused by their employee using their plant while assisting another employer
  2. 2 Whether custom of trade imposes liability for use of plant in such circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders are not liable as Hill was lent to the Harvey Engineering Company, which had control over him during the operation; there was no arrangement or authority for use of the defenders' plant, and custom of trade does not impose liability in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

action dismissed as irrelevant

Orders

  • interlocutor appealed against recalled
  • action dismissed