Howie v. Ailsa Shipbuilding Co. [1912] ScotLR 919 (12 July 1912)

Howie v. Ailsa Shipbuilding Co. [1912] ScotLR 919 (12 July 1912)

The pursuer failed to aver any relevant connection between the defenders' alleged fault and the proximate cause of the explosion; there was no sufficient pleading that the defenders or their servants caused or could have anticipated the ignition of the naphtha. The action was therefore irrelevant and dismissed.

Citation
[1912] ScotLR 919
Parties
Pursuer: Robert Howie; Defender: Ailsa Shipbuilding Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 July 1912
Procedural Posture
Reparation (damages for Death by Alleged Negligence) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Against Lord Ordinary's Approval of Issue for Trial
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Owner's Liability for Dangerous Substances, Duty of Care to Entrants, Relevancy of Pleadings, Causation in Negligence, Trespass and Occupier's Liability
Tort Reparation Negligence Owner's Liability for Dangerous Substances Duty of Care to Entrants Relevancy of Pleadings Causation in Negligence Trespass and Occupier's Liability

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

Parties

Robert Howie

Pursuer

Ailsa Shipbuilding Company

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation (damages for Death by Alleged Negligence) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Against Lord Ordinary's Approval of Issue for Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's pleadings disclosed a relevant case of fault against the defenders for the explosion and death.
  2. 2 Whether the defenders owed a duty of care to the child, given his presence in the yard.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to aver any relevant connection between the defenders' alleged fault and the proximate cause of the explosion; there was no sufficient pleading that the defenders or their servants caused or could have anticipated the ignition of the naphtha. The action was therefore irrelevant and dismissed.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary recalled.
  • First plea-in-law for the defenders sustained.