M'Manning v. Easton Gibb & Son, Ltd [1911] ScotLR 323 (26 January 1911)

M'Manning v. Easton Gibb & Son, Ltd [1911] ScotLR 323 (26 January 1911)

The pursuer's averments were insufficient to establish a relevant case, as he failed to specify how the banksman could have acted to prevent the accident or the time available for intervention. The action was dismissed as irrelevant.

Citation
[1911] ScotLR 323
Parties
Pursuer: Benjamin Patrick M'Manning; Defender: Easton Gibb & Son, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 January 1911
Procedural Posture
Reparation (damages) / Appeal From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
action dismissed as irrelevant
Legal Topics
Negligence, Master and Servant, Defective System, Common Law Liability
Tort Employment Law Negligence Master and Servant Defective System Common Law Liability

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

Benjamin Patrick M'Manning

Pursuer

Easton Gibb & Son, Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation (damages) / Appeal From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether absence of a banksman constituted actionable negligence
  2. 2 Whether pursuer's averments sufficiently connected alleged fault to accident

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments were insufficient to establish a relevant case, as he failed to specify how the banksman could have acted to prevent the accident or the time available for intervention. The action was dismissed as irrelevant.

Court Disposition

action dismissed as irrelevant

Orders

  • interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled
  • action dismissed