Cass v. Edinburgh and District Tramways Co., Ltd [1908] ScotLR 675 (23 May 1908)

Cass v. Edinburgh and District Tramways Co., Ltd [1908] ScotLR 675 (23 May 1908)

The Court held that the Lord Ordinary's decision to order proof instead of jury trial was a proper exercise of discretion, justified by the doubtful relevancy of the pursuer's averments and the complexity of contributory negligence involving a child. Doubtful relevancy is a sufficient 'special cause' under the Evidence Act 1866, sec. 4, and the Court should not interfere with the Lord Ordinary's procedural discretion in such circumstances.

Citation
[1908] ScotLR 675
Parties
Pursuer: Henry Cass (as tutor and administrator-in-law of William Henry Duncan Cass, a child); Defender: Edinburgh and District Tramways Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 May 1908
Procedural Posture
Action of Damages for Personal Injury / Reclaiming Note Against Interlocutor Ordering Proof Instead of Jury Trial
Outcome
reclaiming note refused; interlocutor adhered to
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Damages, Contributory Negligence, Jury Trial Vs. Proof, Judicial Discretion
Tort Civil Procedure Personal Injury Damages Contributory Negligence Jury Trial Vs. Proof Judicial Discretion

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

Parties

Henry Cass (as tutor and administrator-in-law of William Henry Duncan Cass, a child)

Pursuer

Edinburgh and District Tramways Company, Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Action of Damages for Personal Injury / Reclaiming Note Against Interlocutor Ordering Proof Instead of Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Lord Ordinary's decision to order proof instead of jury trial was justified as 'special cause' under the Evidence Act 1866, sec. 4
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's averments were of such doubtful relevancy as to justify proof rather than jury trial
  3. 3 Whether alternative and potentially inconsistent grounds of liability (faulty construction vs. negligent lookout) can be pled

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Lord Ordinary's decision to order proof instead of jury trial was a proper exercise of discretion, justified by the doubtful relevancy of the pursuer's averments and the complexity of contributory negligence involving a child. Doubtful relevancy is a sufficient 'special cause' under the Evidence Act 1866, sec. 4, and the Court should not interfere with the Lord Ordinary's procedural discretion in such circumstances.

Court Disposition

reclaiming note refused; interlocutor adhered to

Orders

  • The Court adhered to the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor ordering proof instead of jury trial.