Feachan v. Glasgow Subway Co., Ltd [1922] ScotLR 433 (02 June 1922)

Feachan v. Glasgow Subway Co., Ltd [1922] ScotLR 433 (02 June 1922)

The action was irrelevant because the defenders' only duty was to provide gas fittings for lighting to the inspector's satisfaction, and there was no averment of breach. The duty to light the stair was statutory and fell on the Corporation, not the defenders. The construction of the stair did not create a legal trap or additional duty towards the pursuer.

Citation
[1922] ScotLR 433
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Catherine M'Cormack or Feachan; Defender: Glasgow Subway Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 June 1922
Procedural Posture
Reparation (personal Injury) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Occupiers' Liability, Statutory Duty to Light Common Stairs, Trap Liability, Relevancy of Pleadings
Tort Property Law Statutory Interpretation Negligence Occupiers' Liability Statutory Duty to Light Common Stairs Trap Liability 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Catherine M'Cormack or Feachan

Pursuer

Glasgow Subway Company, Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation (personal Injury) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders owed a duty to the pursuer regarding the construction and lighting of the stair.
  2. 2 Whether the lack of lighting or construction defects constituted a legal 'trap' for which the defenders were liable.
  3. 3 Whether the statutory duty to light the stair under the Glasgow Police Act 1866 was breached by the defenders.

Ratio Decidendi

The action was irrelevant because the defenders' only duty was to provide gas fittings for lighting to the inspector's satisfaction, and there was no averment of breach. The duty to light the stair was statutory and fell on the Corporation, not the defenders. The construction of the stair did not create a legal trap or additional duty towards the pursuer.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • appeal sustained
  • Sheriff-Substitute's interlocutor recalled