Allan v. Dunfermline District Committee of FIFE County Council [1908] ScotLR 25 (30 October 1908)

Allan v. Dunfermline District Committee of FIFE County Council [1908] ScotLR 25 (30 October 1908)

Even if all averments by the pursuer were proved, the defenders owed no duty to fence the tanks or ground, as there was no public right-of-way, invitation, or approval for use as a playground. The pursuer's case falls within the precedent of Prentices v. Assets Company, Limited, and is therefore irrelevant.

Citation
[1908] ScotLR 25
Parties
Pursuer: John Allan; Defender: Dunfermline District Committee of Fife County Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 October 1908
Procedural Posture
Reparation / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Against Dismissal for Irrelevancy
Outcome
appeal dismissed; original dismissal for irrelevancy adhered to
Legal Topics
Negligence, Occupiers' Liability, Public Safety, Duty to Fence Dangerous Structures
Tort Reparation Negligence Occupiers' Liability Public Safety Duty to Fence Dangerous Structures

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

Parties

John Allan

Pursuer

Dunfermline District Committee of Fife County Council

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Against Dismissal for Irrelevancy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether owners of private ground are liable in damages for failing to fence dangerous structures accessible via unfenced ground habitually used by the public
  2. 2 Whether the facts averred by the pursuer are relevant to establish a duty of care owed by the defenders

Ratio Decidendi

Even if all averments by the pursuer were proved, the defenders owed no duty to fence the tanks or ground, as there was no public right-of-way, invitation, or approval for use as a playground. The pursuer's case falls within the precedent of Prentices v. Assets Company, Limited, and is therefore irrelevant.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; original dismissal for irrelevancy adhered to

Orders

  • action dismissed
  • court adhered to Lord Ordinary's decision