M'Donald v. Smellie [1903] ScotLR 40_702 (20 June 1903)

M'Donald v. Smellie [1903] ScotLR 40_702 (20 June 1903)

It is sufficient to establish liability that the dog had previously acted in a way dangerous to children and that the defender knew this; proof of viciousness is unnecessary. The death, though involving a predisposition to disease, was directly caused by the bite and is not too remote for damages.

Citation
[1903] ScotLR 40_702
Parties
Pursuer: Daniel M'Donald; Defender: James Smellie junior
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 June 1903
Procedural Posture
Reparation (damages for Wrongful Death) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House
Outcome
appeal dismissed; defender held liable
Legal Topics
Negligence, Dangerous Animals, Causation, Remoteness of Damage
Tort Personal Injury Animal Law Negligence Dangerous Animals Causation Remoteness of Damage

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

Parties

Daniel M'Donald

Pursuer

James Smellie junior

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation (damages for Wrongful Death) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether liability for injury caused by a dog requires proof of viciousness or knowledge of dangerousness
  2. 2 Whether death resulting from a disease triggered by the injury is too remote for damages

Ratio Decidendi

It is sufficient to establish liability that the dog had previously acted in a way dangerous to children and that the defender knew this; proof of viciousness is unnecessary. The death, though involving a predisposition to disease, was directly caused by the bite and is not too remote for damages.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; defender held liable

Orders

  • Defender to pay £15 sterling as damages to the pursuer