Mathieson v. Caledonian Railway Co. [1903] ScotLR 40_392 (24 February 1903)

Mathieson v. Caledonian Railway Co. [1903] ScotLR 40_392 (24 February 1903)

The pursuer's averments did not disclose any relevant breach of duty by the railway company. The delay and exposure to cold were due to exceptional weather, and the company's actions were reasonable in the circumstances. No fault was imputed to the company or its servants.

Citation
[1903] ScotLR 40_392
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: Mrs Margaret Gray or Mathieson; Defender/reclaimer: Caledonian Railway Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 February 1903
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Reparation, Negligence, Carriage of Passengers, Railway Liability
Tort Contract Reparation Negligence Carriage of Passengers Railway 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Margaret Gray or Mathieson

Pursuer/respondent

Caledonian Railway Company

Defender/reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the railway company owed a duty to provide special care or assistance to a passenger snowed up in a carriage during a delay caused by a snowstorm
  2. 2 Whether the facts averred by the pursuer disclosed any relevant breach of duty by the railway company

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments did not disclose any relevant breach of duty by the railway company. The delay and exposure to cold were due to exceptional weather, and the company's actions were reasonable in the circumstances. No fault was imputed to the company or its servants.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • interlocutor reclaimed against recalled
  • first plea-in-law for defenders sustained