Hogg v. Cupar District Committee of Fife County Council [1911] ScotLR 205 (15 December 1911)

Hogg v. Cupar District Committee of Fife County Council [1911] ScotLR 205 (15 December 1911)

There was no evidence that the defenders' servant could have anticipated the horse would back when the nose-bag was removed, nor that he removed it in any unusual manner. Therefore, no breach of duty or negligence was established, and the defenders are not liable.

Citation
[1911] ScotLR 205
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Isabella Johnstone or Hogg; Defender: Cupar District Committee of the County Council of Fife
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 December 1911
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff to Court of Session Inner House, First Division
Outcome
appeal allowed; action dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Employer's Liability, Accident Involving Animals
Tort Personal Injury Negligence Duty of Care Employer's Liability Accident Involving Animals

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

Parties

Mrs Isabella Johnstone or Hogg

Pursuer

Cupar District Committee of the County Council of Fife

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff to Court of Session Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders' servant was negligent in removing the nose-bag from the horse without checking for persons behind, resulting in injury to the pursuer.
  2. 2 Whether the defenders are liable for the injuries sustained by the pursuer due to the actions of their servant.

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that the defenders' servant could have anticipated the horse would back when the nose-bag was removed, nor that he removed it in any unusual manner. Therefore, no breach of duty or negligence was established, and the defenders are not liable.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; action dismissed

Orders

  • Recal the interlocutor of the Sheriff dated 13th May 1911.
  • Affirm the interlocutor of the Sheriff-Substitute dated 21st March 1911.