Mathieson's Tutor v. Aikman's Trustees and Others [1909] ScotLR 36 (15 October 1909)

Mathieson's Tutor v. Aikman's Trustees and Others [1909] ScotLR 36 (15 October 1909)

The pleadings were barely relevant because they alleged the landlords retained control of the lift and knew or ought to have known of its defective condition; thus, a possible duty to the public could arise if control and knowledge were proved. The case should proceed to proof before a jury on this limited basis.

Citation
[1909] ScotLR 36
Parties
Pursuer: John Mathieson (as tutor and administrator-in-law of William Mathieson); Defenders: John James Pollock and others, Aikman's marriage-contract trustees
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 October 1909
Procedural Posture
Reparation (personal Injury) / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Approval of Issue for Jury Trial
Outcome
Reclaiming note refused; issue approved; case remitted for jury trial.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Occupier's Liability, Landlord's Duty to Public, Premises Liability, Relevancy of Averments
Tort Landlord and Tenant Negligence Occupier's Liability Landlord's Duty to Public Premises Liability Relevancy of Averments

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

Parties

John Mathieson (as tutor and administrator-in-law of William Mathieson)

Pursuer

John James Pollock and others, Aikman's marriage-contract trustees

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Reparation (personal Injury) / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Approval of Issue for Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlords owed a duty of care to a member of the public injured by a defective lift in premises let to tenants
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings disclosed a relevant case against the landlords for negligence
  3. 3 Whether the landlords retained control and responsibility for the lift apparatus

Ratio Decidendi

The pleadings were barely relevant because they alleged the landlords retained control of the lift and knew or ought to have known of its defective condition; thus, a possible duty to the public could arise if control and knowledge were proved. The case should proceed to proof before a jury on this limited basis.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming note refused; issue approved; case remitted for jury trial.

Orders

  • The Court adhered to the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor.
  • Refused the reclaiming note of the defenders.