Watson v. Wordie & Co. [1906] ScotLR 43_644 (05 June 1906)

Watson v. Wordie & Co. [1906] ScotLR 43_644 (05 June 1906)

The pursuer's averments do not disclose a relevant case of fault or negligence. The mere habit of a horse stopping at a walking pace does not constitute a danger reasonably to be anticipated, nor does it make the use of such a horse wrongful. The action is dismissed as no relevant case for inquiry is established.

Citation
[1906] ScotLR 43_644
Parties
Pursuer: Thomas Watson; Defender: Wordie & Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 June 1906
Procedural Posture
Reparation (damages) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion)
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Use of Animals in Public Streets
Tort Personal Injury Negligence Contributory Negligence Use of Animals in Public Streets

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

Thomas Watson

Pursuer

Wordie & Company

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation (damages) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether employing a horse with a known habit of 'reesting' (sudden stopping) constitutes negligence
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's averments disclose a relevant case of fault against the defenders
  3. 3 Whether contributory negligence by the pursuer bars recovery

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments do not disclose a relevant case of fault or negligence. The mere habit of a horse stopping at a walking pace does not constitute a danger reasonably to be anticipated, nor does it make the use of such a horse wrongful. The action is dismissed as no relevant case for inquiry is established.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • interlocutor recalled
  • action dismissed