Cass v. Edinburgh and District Tramways Co., Ltd [1909] ScotLR 734 (01 June 1909)

Cass v. Edinburgh and District Tramways Co., Ltd [1909] ScotLR 734 (01 June 1909)

The defenders were not negligent in the construction or use of the tramcar, as the reverse stair did not materially obstruct the driver's view in a manner that created a foreseeable risk, nor was there a breach of statutory duty. Even if fault were established, the child was capable of and guilty of contributory negligence by failing to look before crossing, which directly caused the accident and barred recovery.

Citation
[1909] ScotLR 734
Parties
Pursuer (reclaimer): Henry Cass (as tutor and administrator-in-law of William Henry Duncan Cass, a child); Defender (respondent): Edinburgh and District Tramways Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 June 1909
Procedural Posture
Civil (reparation/damages for Personal Injury) / Inner House, Second Division, Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Lord Ordinary
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment for defenders affirmed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Statutory Duty, Tramway Accidents, Child Capacity for Negligence
Tort Personal Injury Transport Law Negligence Contributory Negligence Statutory Duty Tramway Accidents Child Capacity for Negligence

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Cass (as tutor and administrator-in-law of William Henry Duncan Cass, a child)

Pursuer (reclaimer)

Edinburgh and District Tramways Company, Limited

Defender (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil (reparation/damages for Personal Injury) / Inner House, Second Division, Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Lord Ordinary

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tramway company was negligent in the construction and use of a tramcar with a 'reverse' stair that allegedly obstructed the driver's view, in breach of Board of Trade regulations and common law duty.
  2. 2 Whether the injured child was capable of and guilty of contributory negligence, barring recovery.

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders were not negligent in the construction or use of the tramcar, as the reverse stair did not materially obstruct the driver's view in a manner that created a foreseeable risk, nor was there a breach of statutory duty. Even if fault were established, the child was capable of and guilty of contributory negligence by failing to look before crossing, which directly caused the accident and barred recovery.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment for defenders affirmed.

Orders

  • Absolvitor (dismissal) granted in favour of defenders with expenses.