Stewart v Adams
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 03 December 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 21. |
| Date | 03 December 1919 |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Dundas, Lord Salvesen, Lord Guthrie.
Reparation—Negligence—Repair operations causing deposit of noxious material on grazing ground—Injury to stock—Repair operations carried out by employee—Liability of employer—Master and Servant—Agent and Principal.
A boatowner employed a joiner to repair his boats, which were drawn up on pasture ground beside the shore of a loch. The repair operations involved scraping the old paint off the boats. The paint scrapings were left lying on the ground, and poisoned a cow that was grazing on the pasture. In an action of damages at the instance of the owner of the cow against the boatowner,
Held that, whether the repairer was the servant of the boatowner or an independent contractor, it was the boatowner's duty to see that the paint scrapings were removed, and that, having failed in that duty, he was liable in damages for the cow's death.
In July 1918 Alexander Stewart, shepherd, Dalwhinnie, brought an action in the Sheriff Court at Inverness against George Adams, hotelkeeper, Loch Ericht, Dalwhinnie, for payment of £57, 10s., with a further sum of £1 per week from the date of citation till payment, in respect of the death of a cow.
The pursuer had the right to graze a cow on certain grazings on the shore of Loch Ericht, of which his employer was tenant. The defender, as the tenant of Loch Ericht Hotel, had a right of fishing in Loch Ericht, and kept his boats in a boathouse situated on the grazings near the pursuer's house.
The following, inter alia, were the averments of the parties on record:—
(Stat. 4) ‘Some five or six weeks ago the defender employed a man to scrape off part of the outside painting of said boats and replace same by tar, which operations were, on the instructions of the defender, carried out on said grazing in close proximity to said boathouse.’ (Ans. 4) ‘Admitted that the defender contracted with Mr Macpherson, joiner contractor, Laggan, to repair his boats, but no painting was carried out thereon. The contractor's receipt for the account incurred to him is herewith produced.’* (Stat. 5) ‘The place where said scraping and tarring of boats took place was part of the grazing where pursuer's said cow fed.’ (Ans. 5) ‘Admitted that the repairs referred to in the account herewith Produced
were carried out where condescended on.’ (Stat. 6) ‘After and during the scraping and tarring of said boats as aforesaid there was a considerable amount or said paint scrapings and white lead culpably and negligently left lying on said grazing near to said boathouse by the defender's said employee, with the result that the pursuer's said cow while there grazing swallowed a quantity of said paint scrapings and white lead, and as a consequence, on or about Wednesday, 19th June 1918, became seriously ill, and, although immediately attended to by a veterinary surgeon, died on Sunday, 23rd June, following.’ (Ans. 6) ‘Not known and not admitted, and reference made to answer 4.’
The pursuer pleaded, inter alia;—(1) The defender, or those for whom he is responsible, having by culpable and negligent conduct caused the pursuer loss and damage as condescended on, is bound to make reparation therefor.
The defender pleaded, inter alia;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Angela Mcmanus And Robert Mcmanus Against (first) City Link Development Company Limited; (second) Scott Wilson Scotland Limited; And (third) Lanarkshire Housing Association Limited
...proceedings to see that all necessary precautions are taken”. For that proposition, counsel rely on the decisions in Stewart v Adams 1920 SC 129 (“Adams”) and Morris Amusements. [27] The pursuers’ case, say counsel, is that, up to 1994, the first defenders were made aware of the former uses......
-
David Stewart+doreen Kennedy Stewart V. Aftab Ahmed Malik
...(1975) 133 C.L.R. 550, per Mason, J at pages 574-5). There was no clear authority importing the exception into Scots law: Stewart v Adams 1920 S.C. 129 involved the defender's personal fault rather than a form of vicarious liability; the decision following proof, as opposed to debate, in Du......
-
Thomas And Joyce Mcmillan V. Ahmos Farid Fahmy Ghaly
...as a matter of law. The principle is illustrated in the judgments in Miller v Renton, Cameron v Fraser(cit. Supra) and Stewart v Adams 1920 S.C. 129 as well as in a number of English cases, most particularly Ellis v Sheffield Gas Co [1853] 2 E. & B. 767. I did make some effort to find moder......