Hardie v. Sneddon and Another [1916] ScotLR 29 (19 October 1916)

Hardie v. Sneddon and Another [1916] ScotLR 29 (19 October 1916)

Where a tenant is aware of a dangerous condition on or adjacent to the leased premises, has complained but received no remedy, and continues in occupation without taking steps to protect his family or terminate the tenancy, he cannot recover damages from the landlord for injury to his child resulting from that danger. The law does not impose a higher duty on the landlord towards children than adults in such circumstances, and the parent's knowledge and inaction bar recovery.

Citation
[1916] ScotLR 29
Parties
Pursuer: John Hardie; Defender: Robert Sneddon; Defender: Baton Colliery Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 October 1916
Procedural Posture
Reparation (damages) Action / Appeal From Sheriff to Court of Session Inner House, Second Division
Outcome
action dismissed as irrelevant
Legal Topics
Negligence, Dangerous Premises, Duty of Care, Contributory Negligence, Liability to Children, Landlord's Obligations
Tort Landlord and Tenant Negligence Dangerous Premises Duty of Care Contributory Negligence Liability to Children Landlord's Obligations

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Hardie

Pursuer

Robert Sneddon

Defender

Baton Colliery Company, Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation (damages) Action / Appeal From Sheriff to Court of Session Inner House, Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a landlord is liable in damages for injury to a tenant's child caused by an unfenced well on unenclosed ground to which tenants had access
  2. 2 Whether knowledge of the danger and continued occupation by the tenant bars recovery
  3. 3 Whether there is a higher duty of care owed to children than adults in such circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Where a tenant is aware of a dangerous condition on or adjacent to the leased premises, has complained but received no remedy, and continues in occupation without taking steps to protect his family or terminate the tenancy, he cannot recover damages from the landlord for injury to his child resulting from that danger. The law does not impose a higher duty on the landlord towards children than adults in such circumstances, and the parent's knowledge and inaction bar recovery.

Court Disposition

action dismissed as irrelevant

Orders

  • Sheriff's interlocutor recalled; judgment of Sheriff-Substitute restored; action dismissed