Wilson v. Glasgow and South-Western Railway Co. [1914] ScotLR 146 (15 December 1914)

Wilson v. Glasgow and South-Western Railway Co. [1914] ScotLR 146 (15 December 1914)

There was no relevant averment of negligence or fault against the railway company. The hoist was of usual construction, not shown to be faulty or unusually dangerous, and the company could not reasonably have anticipated the specific danger that befell the child. The duty to exclude unauthorised persons from the hoist did not arise in the absence of a concealed or unusual danger. The pleadings disclosed no relevant ground of liability and the action was dismissed.

Citation
[1914] ScotLR 146
Parties
Pursuer: William Wilson, as tutor to William Wilson junior; Defender: Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 December 1914
Procedural Posture
Civil (reparation/damages) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion to Inner House, First Division)
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Occupiers' Liability, Duty of Care, Child Injury, Relevancy of Pleadings
Tort Personal Injury Railway Law Negligence Occupiers' Liability Duty of Care Child Injury Relevancy of Pleadings

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Wilson, as tutor to William Wilson junior

Pursuer

Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (reparation/damages) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion to Inner House, First Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the railway company owed a duty of care to a child injured while using a luggage hoist at a station
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings disclosed a relevant case of negligence against the railway company
  3. 3 Whether the construction or management of the hoist constituted a concealed danger or trap for children

Ratio Decidendi

There was no relevant averment of negligence or fault against the railway company. The hoist was of usual construction, not shown to be faulty or unusually dangerous, and the company could not reasonably have anticipated the specific danger that befell the child. The duty to exclude unauthorised persons from the hoist did not arise in the absence of a concealed or unusual danger. The pleadings disclosed no relevant ground of liability and the action was dismissed.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary recalled
  • Action dismissed