Connelly v Clyde Navigation Trustees
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 16 October 1902 |
| Date | 16 October 1902 |
| Docket Number | No. 2. |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Adam, Lord M'Laren, Lord Kinnear, Lord President.
ProcessJury TrialBill of ExceptionsForm of BillCourt of Session Act, 1868 (31 and 32 Vict. c. 100), sec. 35.
Exceptions to the charge of the presiding Judge at a jury trial disallowed in respect that the bill of exceptions was defective in omitting to state the circumstances in which the exceptions were taken, and that it was impossible without such statement to judge of their validity.
ReparationMaster and ServantEmploymentLiability of Master for fault of Servant under orders of another person.
The Clyde Navigation Trustees hired out a crane, with the services of the craneman, who was engaged and paid by them, to stevedores, for the purpose of unloading a vessel. A workman in the employment of the stevedores was injured, as he alleged, by the negligence of the craneman.
Observations (by Lord Kinnear) as to the considerations which ought to be taken into account in determining whether the craneman was to be regarded as the servant of the stevedores or of the Clyde Navigation Trustees in a question of liability for injuries caused by his negligence.
On 14th August 1901 John Connelly, a labourer employed by George Munro, stevedore, was injured while assisting to unload iron ore from the ship Kathleen, lying at the General Terminus Quay, South Side, Glasgow. The injuries were caused by his being struck by a bucket in which the iron ore was hoisted from the hold by means of a steam crane.
In September 1901 he raised an action for damages in respect of these injuries in the Sheriff Court at Glasgow against the Trustees of the Clyde Navigation.
He averred;(Cond. 1) The said vessel was discharged by means of a steam crane belonging to the defenders, and said crane was worked by a craneman [Hall] in their employment, and subject to their control; and he further averred (Cond. 2) that the accident was caused by the fault of the craneman in failing to obey the orders of the hatchmouthman (a man in the employment of the stevedores) in regard to the hoisting of the buckets.
The defenders stated;(Ans. 1) Explained that the defenders hired out to the stevedore the crane and a man to work it. The discharging was being done by the stevedore, and the work was under his control. The craneman was bound to obey all orders given to him by the stevedore, his foremen and men, and pro hac vice the craneman was the servant of the stevedore.
On 4th October 1901 the pursuer appealed for jury trial, and on 23d January 1902 the Court, after hearing counsel for the defenders on the relevancy of the pursuer's averments, approved of the following issue1:Whether, on or about 14th August 1901, and aboard the s.s. Kathleen, at or near the General Terminus Quay, South Side, Glasgow, the pursuer was injured in his person through the fault of the defenders, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer? Damages laid at 300 sterling.
The case was tried before the Lord President and a jury on 17th March 1902, and a verdict was returned for the defenders. The pursuer presented a bill of exceptions containing the following statement:
And upon the trial of the said issue, the counsel for the parties adduced evidence to maintain and prove their respective contentions.
After evidence for both parties had been closed, and their respective counsel had addressed the jury, the Lord President charged the said jury, and in the course of his address, inter alia, directed them as follows, viz.:
That if the jury are satisfied upon the evidence that the stevedore or his men had such a kind or degree of control over the craneman as to make him a servant of the stevedore in the unloading of the Kathleen, the defenders are not liable for fault or negligence on the part of the craneman while so employed.
The pursuer's counsel thereupon asked the Lord President to deliver to the jury, in place of the said direction, the direction following, viz.:
That if the jury are of opinion that the pursuer's injuries were
due to the fault of Hall, and that Hall was in the employment of the defenders, having been selected, engaged, and paid, and being liable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
IR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
...living descriptors were those for preparing food 1c (2 points), washing and bathing 4c (2 points) and managing toilet needs or incontinence 5f (8 points), while mobility descriptor planning and following journeys 1f (12 also applied. As a result, the claimant was awarded the enhanced rate o......
-
Ainslie v Leith Dock Commissioners
...3 (1886) 2 T. L. R. 781, at p. 782. 4 [1894] A. C. 185, at p. 188. 1 25 R, 1021. 2 [1893] 1 Q. B. 629. 3 [1911] 2 I. R. 143. 1 25 R. 1021. 2 5 F. 8. 3 [1893] 1 Q. B. 4 [1911] 2 I. R. 143. ...
-
Mr S Famojuro v Boots Management Services Ltd and Mrs E Walker: 3219822/2020 and 3204945/2021
...to these matters and that, if a last straw is needed, the failure by Ms Munson to apologise within a timely period provided it. Issue 5(f), 8 and 13(e) [Harassment, direct discrimination, constructive dismissal]: the failure of the First Respondent [Mr Barnes] to procure that its Mrs Munson......
-
R. v. Turner,
...bdV1oLGq7QPmAwOuee5/A+goudT1/Vdr3NlJbrGGIhjlClsjgE8dOvbJ9adbeGbMWqjVbjCs+5F8 4v5nGcngcZP6V18sacU5WOaPv6mNMNNHlwW9tNKz4aF54SAe24dTwP071Uj0q3lupDJMsiswKQyR kYZegAA65HfPvxyOuitIHtBJHmZX+ZZWk2hgeCMD+HnuD29AahhsmtJ5pobdfnYA7Vw2MYyOueT+ XPbFafWI8t0HsY7Gbb6RLJAtxqRaFv7wmHygj+IEYz14I6CpYIWgKylo2k87......
-
PPP Loan Forgiveness And The Denial Of Deductions For Covered Expenses – What’s Wrong With The IRS’s Position?
...'0' , handler: '//fbapps.jdsupra.com/statistics/pixel?partnerID=dc4a1c64-176f-4a9f-913d-afd8f74f746f&file_unique_id=1edcf1dc-0bf3-45a2-87d7-5f8cbb4b86aa&profile_id=15734&type=5&' // Public , pageview: function (data) { if (data === undefined) { data = this._curpage(); } else if (typeof (dat......
-
How Much is That Issue Fee Payment in the Window?
...Please see this article for a discussion of other significant changes effected under the Patent Law View This Blog Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff...
-
Talk About Ironic: Brexit Group Fined Under EU-Related Privacy Regulations
...= { // Properties version: '0' , handler: '//fbapps.jdsupra.com/statistics/pixel?partnerID=dc4a1c64-176f-4a9f-913d-afd8f74f746f&file_unique_id=5f8b313a-fd6f-44bf-bab3-906102591897&profile_id=2105&type=5&' // Public , pageview: function (data) { if (data === undefined) { data = this._curpage......
-
Hidden Details: Thoughts on Trade Secrets From the UK
...= { // Properties version: '0' , handler: '//fbapps.jdsupra.com/statistics/pixel?partnerID=dc4a1c64-176f-4a9f-913d-afd8f74f746f&file_unique_id=5f8ecc7c-2750-4823-bb6c-4fe223e71930&profile_id=15521&type=5&' // Public , pageview: function (data) { if (data === undefined) { data = this._curpag......
-
The Racial Geography of the Federal Death Penalty
...(last visited July 2, 1010). 177. 28 U.S.C. § 100(2) (2006). 178. See Appendix D-2, supra note 176, at 5F, 8F. 179. Id. at 5D, 180. See Pamela S. Karlan, Race, Rights, and Remedies in Criminal Adjudication, 96 Mich. L. Rev. 2001, 2016 (1998) ("[T]he Court has suggested that race and sex mat......
-
POOLING AND UNITIZATION PRACTICES BEFORE THE TEXAS RAILROAD COMMISSION
...size limitation is particularly troublesome if the MIPA application involves a horizontal well. Both Statewide Rule 86, which governs [Page 5F-8] horizontal wells, and special field rules adopted for horizontal wells in certain fields, provide for oil proration units substantially larger th......
-
ANTICOMPETITIVE OR HYPERCOMPETITIVE: AN APPLICATION OF FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC ANTITRUST POLICY TO THE RULING IN FTC V. QUALCOMM.
...Kasdan, Recent Developments In The Licensing Of Standards Essential Patents, NAT'L L. REV. (Aug. 30, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/66TZ-5F8J (explaining the standards through which SEPs are (83) See Qualcomm, 411 F. Supp. 3d at 751 (detailing Qualcomm's commitment as an SEP holder to ......
-
Separation of Prosecutors.
...132. (89.) About the Criminal Division: History, U.S. DEP'T JUST. (Feb. 3, 2016), https://www.justice.gov/criminal/history [https://perma.cc/5F8F-TQX6]. (90.) PETER H. IRONS, THE NEW DEAL LAWYERS 41 (1982) ("Local U.S. attorneys... [maintained] an independent political base and a tenuous in......
-
Utah State Bulletin Number 2022-19, October 1, 2022
...director determines that current and potential future impacts to groundwater are insignificant in accordance with Subsection R315-101-5(f)(8). (3) [The owner or operator of a hazardous waste management facility or a facility subject to interim status requirements shall meet the requirements......
-
London County Council (Money) Act 1914
...of property compensation works and other incidental expenditure. Erection of dwellings for the re-housingof persons displaced. 6^ 5,136,200 ! 5,f8*,638 Canted forward 540,090 135500 [4 & 5 Geo. 5 j London dowdy Council (Money) [Ch. clxxil.] Act, 1914. THE SCHEDULEcmtinmd. A.D. 1914. Acts fo......
-
Massachusetts Register Issue 2016-1321, September 9, 2016
... 600.25.9 1-CHLORO-1-NITROPROPANE 2,4,6 106.89.8 * 1-CHLORO-2,3-EPOXYPROPANE 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 *E*C* F6 F8 F9 97.00.7 1-CHLORO-2,4-DINITROBENZENE 5 F8 127.00.4 1-CHLORO-2-PROPANOL 6 100.00.5 * 1 CHLORO 4 NITROBENZENE 2,4, 6 F8 544.10.5 1-CHLOROHEXANE 5,6 543.59.9 1-CHLOROPENTANE 5,6 590.21.6......
-
Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 13, § 1968.2 Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements-2004 and Subsequent Model-Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines
...1 Applies to (f)(3.2.5), (f)(4), (f)(6), (f)(7), (f)(9.2.1), (f)(9.2.2), (f)(9.2.4)(B), (f)(12)-(f)(14) 2 Applies to (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(5), (f)(8), and 3 2.00 multiplier applies to (f)(3.2.5), (f)(4), (f)(6), (f)(7), (f)(9.2.2), (f)(9.2.4)(B), (f)(12), and (f)(13) 4 For (f)(9.2.1), the PM ......