Pollock v. Corporation of Glasgow [1901] ScotLR 39_1 (15 October 1901)

Pollock v. Corporation of Glasgow [1901] ScotLR 39_1 (15 October 1901)

The pursuer's averments disclose no relevant ground of action against the defenders, as the accident resulted from the boy's own act of jumping off a moving tramcar, with no fault established on the part of the driver or the defenders. The practice of allowing boys to shift points did not cause the injury, and there was no averment that the driver knew or should have known the boy wished to alight.

Citation
[1901] ScotLR 39_1
Parties
Pursuer: James Pollock (as tutor and administrator-in-law of James Pollock junior, and for his own right and interest); Defender: Corporation of Glasgow
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 October 1901
Procedural Posture
Reparation (damages for Personal Injury) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
action dismissed as irrelevant
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Master and Servant Liability, Volunteer Liability, Tramway Accidents
Tort Personal Injury Employment Law Negligence Contributory Negligence Master and Servant Liability Volunteer Liability Tramway Accidents

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

Parties

James Pollock (as tutor and administrator-in-law of James Pollock junior, and for his own right and interest)

Pursuer

Corporation of Glasgow

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation (damages for Personal Injury) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders (Corporation of Glasgow) are liable for injuries sustained by a boy assisting tramway staff, under alleged custom, when injured while alighting from a moving tramcar.
  2. 2 Whether the driver or the defenders were at fault, or whether the accident was due to the boy's own actions (contributory negligence).
  3. 3 Whether the practice of employing boys not in service to shift points created liability for the defenders.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments disclose no relevant ground of action against the defenders, as the accident resulted from the boy's own act of jumping off a moving tramcar, with no fault established on the part of the driver or the defenders. The practice of allowing boys to shift points did not cause the injury, and there was no averment that the driver knew or should have known the boy wished to alight.

Court Disposition

action dismissed as irrelevant

Orders

  • interlocutor reclaimed against recalled
  • action dismissed