Gray v. Caledonian Railway Co. [1911] ScotLR 219 (23 December 1911)

Gray v. Caledonian Railway Co. [1911] ScotLR 219 (23 December 1911)

There is no relevant averment of improper construction of the engine, but there is a relevant averment of negligent use. The action is improperly laid as a lump sum for multiple children; separate sums must be specified for each child. The case is remitted to the Sheriff for amendment and proof.

Citation
[1911] ScotLR 219
Parties
Pursuer: Thomas Gray; Defender: Caledonian Railway Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 December 1911
Procedural Posture
Civil Reparation (personal Injury) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session, Interlocutory Decision on Relevancy and Remittal
Outcome
Interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute recalled; objections to relevancy repelled except as to construction; case remitted to Sheriff for amendment and proof.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Personal Injury, Damages, Pleading Requirements, Parent and Child, Reparation
Tort Railway Law Negligence Personal Injury Damages Pleading Requirements Parent and Child Reparation

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

Parties

Thomas Gray

Pursuer

Caledonian Railway Company

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Reparation (personal Injury) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session, Interlocutory Decision on Relevancy and Remittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's averments disclose a relevant case of negligence against the railway company for injuries caused by emission of cinders and soot from an engine.
  2. 2 Whether it is competent for a parent, as administrator-in-law, to sue for a lump sum for injuries to multiple children, or whether separate sums must be specified for each child.

Ratio Decidendi

There is no relevant averment of improper construction of the engine, but there is a relevant averment of negligent use. The action is improperly laid as a lump sum for multiple children; separate sums must be specified for each child. The case is remitted to the Sheriff for amendment and proof.

Court Disposition

Interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute recalled; objections to relevancy repelled except as to construction; case remitted to Sheriff for amendment and proof.

Orders

  • Recall interlocutor of 20th November 1911.
  • Repel objections to relevancy except regarding construction of the engine.