Donnelly v Glasgow Corporation.; Henderson v Glasgow Corporation.; Ross v Glasgow Corporation
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 04 November 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 13. |
| Date | 04 November 1952 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - Second Division) |
2ND DIVISION.
Lord Macintosh. Sheriff of Lanarkshire.
NegligenceMaster and ServantDefective plantMotor omnibusAccident caused by defect in design of omnibusInjury to driver and conductorEmployers attributing fault to manufacturersEmployers relying upon vehicle's "certificate of fitness" for road serviceRelevancy of defencesRoad Traffic Act, 1930 (20 and 21 Geo. V, cap. 43), sec. 68.
The Road Traffic Act, 1930, enacts by sec. 68 (1) that "a licence to use a vehicle adapted to carry eight or more passengers as a stage carriage, express carriage or contract carriage shall not be granted unless a certificate (hereinafter referred to as a certificate of fitness) has been issued by a certifying officer that the prescribed conditions as to fitness are fulfilled in respect of the vehicle and such a certificate is in force."
The driver and conductor of a motor omnibus brought actions of damages against their employers for injuries suffered when the omnibus overturned as the result of a breakage in a front road spring. The defenders admitted that the accident had been caused by defects in the chassis of the omnibus, but they averred that these were defects in design, which, so far as the defenders were concerned, were latent defects, and that they had fulfilled any duty incumbent on them by purchase of the chassis from reputable manufacturers. They further averred that the accident was caused by the fault of the manufacturers in supplying a chassis which they knew, or ought to have known, was defective. They also averred that, in any event, the issue by the Ministry of Transport of a certificate of fitness in respect of the omnibus had relieved them of any duty which they might otherwise have had in relation to the adequacy or sufficiency of its design.
Held that, in a question with their servants, the employers could not escape liability for having provided defective plant either by blaming the manufacturers of the omnibus or by invoking the certificate of fitness issued by the Ministry, and that, accordingly, the defences so far as based on these two matters were irrelevant.
NegligenceTraffic accidentsAccident caused by defect in design of vehicleInjury to passengerLiability of ownerLiability of manufacturer.
A passenger in a motor omnibus, who had suffered injuries when the omnibus overturned as the result of a breakage in a front road spring, brought an action of damages in the Sheriff Court against both the owners and the manufacturers of the omnibus. He blamed the owners for their failure in the duty of inspection and their failure to take any action following on reports received by them as to its condition. He blamed the manufacturers on the ground that they had designed a defective and dangerous chassis and had recommended its fitment to a public service vehicle. The manufacturers maintained that the action so far as laid against them was irrelevant since (a) the pursuer's averments did not disclose a situation in which they owed any duty to him, and (b), even if they had owed such a duty, the pursuer had averred a subsequent situation in which responsibility rested with the owners as operators.
Held that the questions raised by the manufacturers could not be decided without inquiry into the facts; and a proof before answerallowed.
Donnelly v. Glasgow Corporation. Henderson v. Glasgow Corporation.
James Donnelly and Peter Kerr Henderson, conductor and driver respectively of an omnibus owned and operated by Glasgow Corporation, brought actions of damages against the Corporation, as their employers, in respect of injuries sustained by each when the omnibus was involved in an accident. The pleadings in both actions were similar.
In Donnelly's action the averments of the parties, as amended in the Inner House, were, inter alia:(Cond. 2) "On or about 24th May 1950 at or about 7.45 a.m. the pursuer in the course of his employment with the defenders was the conductor of an omnibus, owned by the defenders and being driven by Peter Kerr Henderson, a servant of the defenders acting in the course of his employment with them The said omnibus suddenly diverged from the north side of said road to the south side, the omnibus driver having lost control in the circumstances condescended on hereinafter, and overturned After the accident it was found that both the semi-elliptic road springs supporting the chassis on the front axle were broken, as was also the rear torsion bar of the said motor omnibus. It is believed and averred that the breaking of the off-side front road spring allowed the front axle to shift and thereby caused the vehicle to swerve violently to its off-side and, in consequence of the speed at which it was being driven, to overturn." (Ans. 2) " Denied that the speed at which the omnibus was being driven caused it to overturn. Quoad ultra admitted." (Cond. 3) "The said accident was due to the fault and negligence of the defenders. It was their duty, as a public transport undertaking engaged in the conveyance of passengers, to take reasonable care to provide and maintain their omnibuses in a sound and safe condition and, in furtherance of that duty, to cause proper inspections of the omnibuses and all their parts and accessories to be made at regular and frequent intervals. It was their duty to see that the omnibuses were and remained in safe condition so long as they were in use, to take them out of use whenever it became apparent that there was any defect which made them unsafe and not to put them in use until they were safe. It was particularly their duty to take reasonable care to see that the springs fitted to the said omnibuses were always in a sound condition and, in any event, to provide for use in their public transport service motor omnibuses fitted with such safety devices as were normally and usually fitted to passenger carrying vehicles of this type and, in particular, to see that adequate precautions had been taken against danger from broken springs or parts of springs by the provision of safety stops, guards or other devices. The defenders were well aware of the possibilities of breakages of the springs of the type fitted to their said motor omnibus, a large number of breakages having occurred during the period of two years prior to 24th May 1950, and special precautions by way of extra inspections or safety guards should have been taken to meet the possibility of dangers therefrom. In the circumstances, and particularly having regard to their experience of frequent breakage and weakness of the front springs fitted to this type of motor omnibus and the dangers resulting therefrom by reason of the effect of such breakage upon steering, it was also the defenders' duty, if these omnibuses as supplied by their manufacturers did not have the usual safety devices designed to minimise the consequences of a broken front spring, themselves to fit or to have fitted guards or stops which would prevent the front axle moving backwards in the event of the main leaf of one or both of the front springs breaking, or to make or have made such alteration to the front springs as would ensure the engagement of the second leaf in the spring eye in the event of the main leaf breaking. As was averred by the defenders until deleted by amendment such safety devices are normal and usual in public service vehicles but were absent from this motor omnibus In all these duties the defenders failed and so caused the said accident Further and in any event it was the duty of the defenders to supply their servants including the pursuer with adequate plant with which to work in carrying out their functions as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davie v New Merton Board Mills Ltd
...the citation of authority. The second case, in which there was by no means the same degree of similarity, was a Scottish case, Donnelly v. Glasgow Corporation, 1953 S.L.T. 161. Here the question was fully argued and the employers were held liable. I defer the further consideration of this 6......
-
Davie v New Merton Board Mills Ltd
...... out by the Scotch case of ( Donelly -v- Glasgow Corporation 1953 Scots Law Times, page 161 ). In ......
-
Watson v Fram Reinforced Concrete Company (Scotland) Ltd and Winget Ltd
...was due to the negligence of the manufacturers or their servants. His case was based on the decision in Donnelly v. Glasgow Corporation, 1953 S.C. 107, which was later over-ruled by this House in Davie v. New Merton Board Mills, Limited [1959] A.C. 604. 18 As the Appellant could no longer m......