Boyd v. Glasgow Iron and Steel Co., Ltd [1923] ScotLR 487 (26 May 1923)

Boyd v. Glasgow Iron and Steel Co., Ltd [1923] ScotLR 487 (26 May 1923)

The pursuer's averments, if proved, were relevant to infer liability as they alleged the defenders tolerated children's presence, knew of the concealed danger, and failed to take reasonable precautions. The issues of whether the danger was obvious and whether the child appreciated the risk are for the jury, not for summary dismissal.

Citation
[1923] ScotLR 487
Parties
Pursuer: John Boyd; Defender: Glasgow Iron and Steel Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 May 1923
Procedural Posture
Reparation (damages for Negligence) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Against Dismissal at First Instance
Outcome
interlocutor of dismissal recalled; issue for trial by jury allowed
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability, Duty of Care to Children, Concealed Dangers, Allurement Doctrine, Relevance of Pleadings, Jury Trial in Negligence
Tort Negligence Occupiers' Liability Duty of Care to Children Concealed Dangers Allurement Doctrine Relevance of Pleadings Jury Trial in Negligence

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

Parties

John Boyd

Pursuer

Glasgow Iron and Steel Company, Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation (damages for Negligence) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Against Dismissal at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders owed a duty of care to protect children from concealed dangers on their property
  2. 2 Whether the state of the building constituted a 'trap' or concealed danger to children
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer's averments disclosed a relevant case for trial by jury

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments, if proved, were relevant to infer liability as they alleged the defenders tolerated children's presence, knew of the concealed danger, and failed to take reasonable precautions. The issues of whether the danger was obvious and whether the child appreciated the risk are for the jury, not for summary dismissal.

Court Disposition

interlocutor of dismissal recalled; issue for trial by jury allowed

Orders

  • Recall of Lord Ordinary's interlocutor dismissing the action
  • Approval of an issue for trial by jury