Durie v Main & Sons
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 29 October 1957 |
| Date | 29 October 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 5. |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - Second Division) |
2ND DIVISION.
Lord Walker.
NegligenceMaster and ServantShipInjury to stevedore's servantExtent of stevedore's duty to inspect safety of ship and equipment.
A dock labourer brought an action against his employers, a firm of stevedores, for damages in respect of injuries which he had received through the fall of a section of the handrails of a ship on which he was working. The section in question had been removed and propped against the fixed handrail without being lashed to it. After the pursuer had added an averment to the effect that it was so precariously propped as to be an obvious danger, the Court recalled an interlocutor dismissing the action as irrelevant and allowed a proof before answer.
Observations on the extent of a stevedore's, duty to inspect the safety of a ship and its equipment before commencing work.
William Durie brought an action against Andrew Main & Sons, stevedores, claiming damages in respect of injuries which he received on 4th November 1955 while working in the defenders employment as a stevedore on board the S.S. "Catrine."
The pursuer averred, inter alia:(Cond. 2) "On the morning of the said date the pursuer in the course of his employment with the defenders was instructed to discharge grain at No. 4 hatch. Before doing so, it was necessary to rig up a large canvas cover known as asave all cover. This was tied to the ship's side handrails and spread out on to the dock side to catch any loose grain falling from the grabs. The pursuer was on the main deck, along with a squad of other dockers, tying one side of the said cover to the handrails. There was in the vicinity of the pursuer a section of handrail, about 20 feet long and weighing about 8 cwts., which had been removed and left lying upright against the fixed handrail without being lashed to it or otherwise made secure. As the pursuer was engaged in tying the said cover, the said loose section of handrail fell over and knocked the pursuer to the deck. He fell heavily to the main deck, injuring his face and breaking his glasses " (Cond. 3) "The said accident was caused by the fault and negligence of the defenders foreman in charge of the said squad of which the pursuer was a member, a servant of the defenders acting in the course of his employment with them and for whose actings the defenders are responsible. It was his duty to perform his work carefully and with proper regard for the safety of the men in his squad. He was or ought to have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chandran a/l Subbiah v Dockers Marine Pte Ltd
...v Cremin [1956] 1 WLR 103 (not folld) Tsang Hing Cheung v Chan Po Ling Stella [2002] HKCU 1356 (refd) William Durie v Andrew Main & Sons [1958] SC 48 (not folld) William M'Lachlan v The Steamship "Peveril" Co, Ltd (1896) 23 R 753 (refd) Wilson v Tyneside Window Cleaning Co [1958] 2 QB 110 (......
-
Chandran a/l Subbiah v Dockers Marine Pte Ltd (Owners of the Ship or Vessel "Tasman Mariner", Third Party)
...and unbusinesslike burden on the stevedores. 15 Cremin was approved by the two Scottish cases of William Durie v Andrew Main & Sons [1958] SC 48 (“Durie”), a decision of the Second Division of Scotland, and Shephard v Pearson Engineering Services (Dundee) Ltd [1980] SLT 197. In Durie, a doc......
-
Chandran a/l Subbiah v Dockers Marine Pte Ltd (Owners of the Ship or Vessel "Tasman Mariner", Third Party)
...and unbusinesslike burden on the stevedores. 15 Cremin was approved by the two Scottish cases of William Durie v Andrew Main & Sons [1958] SC 48 (“Durie”), a decision of the Second Division of Scotland, and Shephard v Pearson Engineering Services (Dundee) Ltd [1980] SLT 197. In Durie, a doc......