Forsyth v Ramage & Ferguson
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 25 October 1890 |
| Docket Number | No. 5. |
| Date | 25 October 1890 |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord President, Lord Adam, Lord M'Laren.
Reparation—Master and Servant—Employers Liability Act, 1880 (43 and 44 Vict. Cap. 42)—Insufficient provision for servant's safety—Known danger.—
In an action of damages raised by an engineer against his employers, a firm of shipbuilders and engineers, the pursuer averred that he had been employed in fitting up the boilers in a steamer which had been constructed by his employers, and was in course of completion; that he was in the habit of going to his work by the forward hatch, but as this passage was blocked he had, on one occasion, to proceed by the after hatch and through the engine-room; that in doing so he fell into a manhole in the floor of the engine-room and was injured; that the manhole was unprotected, except for some lead pipes which were lying on one side of it; that he was unaware of its existence, as it had been covered over on the only two occasions on which he had previously been in the engine-room; that at the time of the accident the light in the engine-room was dim; that there was a duty on the defenders to cover or protect the manhole so as to prevent accidents, but that they had failed to do so, although similar occurrences had taken place before; that it was the duty of the defenders to have had the engine-room properly lighted; and that their failure in these respects had led to the accident.
Held that, having regard to the circumstances stated, there was no relevant averment of fault on the part of the defenders, and action dismissed.
Allan Forsyth, an engine-fitter in the employment of Messrs Ramage & Ferguson, shipbuilders and engineers in Leith, raised an action against his employers in the Sheriff Court at Edinburgh, concluding for damages at common law, or under the Employers Liability Act.
The pursuer averred;—In May 1890, he had been in the service of the defenders for about a year, and was then employed as an engineer on board the steamship ‘Talune,’ which was in course of being completed. (Cond. 3) ‘On or about Monday the 19th day of May 1890, at ten o'clock in the forenoon, the pursuer had gone down the after hatch of the said vessel, for the purpose of commencing his usual work of fixing on the mountings of the boilers, at which he had been engaged for some weeks previously. In order to reach the boilers the pursuer's way, on this occasion, lay through the engine-room of the vessel, in which there is a manhole leading to a water tank underneath the engine-room, and which is used for ballast purposes. At the time above mentioned there were some lead pipes on the one side of the said manhole, but it was otherwise quite unprotected, and on making his way to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Grant v Sun Shipping Company Ltd
-
L.A. Purcell & Company Ltd v Comptroller of Customs et Al
...18, r. 1 as no pleadings had been filed — Finding of court that plaintiff not entitled to a trial without pleadings under terms of Ord. 18, r. 21 — Summons dismissed — Plaintiff at liberty to prosecute action by filing a statement of claim. Moore, J. 1 This case began on Suit No. 183 of 199......
-
Ursula Riniker (Applicant/Plaintiff) v University College London
...one question, if I may. LORD JUSTICE AULD 11 Yes. 12 THE APPLICANT: You refer to Ord 2, r.1 as the slip rule. I believe normally it is Ord 18, r.21 or something. LORD JUSTICE AULD 13 Well whatever rule is the appropriate rule for the Court to exercise its discretion under this head. 14 THE ......
-
Nealco Properties Ltd v Services Dowell Schlumberger S.A.
...relied are of any relevance on the application which is now before this court. The point there made is that an Order under O. 14 B (now 0. 18 r. 21) that a matter should go to trial without further pleadings is in effect an order for unconditional leave to defend. On the other hand, the que......