Ross v. Glasgow Corporation [1918] ScotLR 129 (10 December 1918)

Ross v. Glasgow Corporation [1918] ScotLR 129 (10 December 1918)

The pursuer's injuries were not a natural and probable consequence of the defenders' negligence, as no reasonable person in her position would have apprehended bodily injury in the circumstances; thus, her averments were irrelevant and insufficient to support a claim for damages for nervous shock.

Citation
[1918] ScotLR 129
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Elizabeth Ross; Defender: Glasgow Corporation
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 December 1918
Procedural Posture
Reparation (personal Injury) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Approval of Issue
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Remoteness of Damage, Nervous Shock, Causation
Tort Personal Injury Negligence Remoteness of Damage Nervous Shock Causation

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Elizabeth Ross

Pursuer

Glasgow Corporation

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation (personal Injury) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Approval of Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's injuries from nervous shock were a natural and probable consequence of the defenders' negligence
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's averments were relevant to support a claim for damages for nervous shock

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's injuries were not a natural and probable consequence of the defenders' negligence, as no reasonable person in her position would have apprehended bodily injury in the circumstances; thus, her averments were irrelevant and insufficient to support a claim for damages for nervous shock.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • Recall of the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor
  • Dismissal of the action