Clelland v. Robb [1910] ScotLR 205 (17 December 1910)

Clelland v. Robb [1910] ScotLR 205 (17 December 1910)

The pursuer's averments, though general, were relevant because they alleged a duty of care arising from the employment relationship and a failure to warn or protect the boy from a known danger. The issue of negligence and knowledge of the horse's propensities was sufficiently pled to go to proof.

Citation
[1910] ScotLR 205
Parties
Pursuer: William Clelland; Defender: Robert Robb
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 December 1910
Procedural Posture
Action of Damages / Relevancy Hearing; Approval of Issue for Trial; Reclaiming Motion
Outcome
Court adhered to the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor; issue approved for trial.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Employer's Liability, Reparation, Child Labour

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Clelland

Pursuer

Robert Robb

Defender

Procedural Posture

Action of Damages / Relevancy Hearing; Approval of Issue for Trial; Reclaiming Motion

  1. 1 Whether the defender owed a duty of care to the deceased boy in the circumstances.
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's averments of negligence were sufficiently specific and relevant to go to proof.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments, though general, were relevant because they alleged a duty of care arising from the employment relationship and a failure to warn or protect the boy from a known danger. The issue of negligence and knowledge of the horse's propensities was sufficiently pled to go to proof.

Court Disposition

Court adhered to the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor; issue approved for trial.

Orders

  • Issue for trial approved: Whether, on or about 19th February 1910, at or near Croftmalloch Farm, Whitburn, James Clelland was killed through the fault of the defender.