On the whole matter I am of opinion that the pursuer's averments are irrelevant, and that the action should be dismissed.
Lord Trayner —I am of the same opinion. The shed in question is not said to be different in construction from any other shed of the same kind in the harbour of Glasgow, and, but for the fire which destroyed it, it would have sufficiently and with safety to all concerned have served the purposes for which it was constructed. It is not a fault on the part of the defenders that the shed was not built so as to resist the effects of fire. If the shed had fallen during a gale the defenders would not in my opinion have been liable for damages caused by such vis major , and I think the damage caused by fire is in the same position.
The pursuer tries to make his case relevant by averring that the defenders had been informed of the dangerous nature of the construction of the shed. But that statement is much too vague to be admitted to probation. It is not stated when or by whom the defenders were informed.
Lord Moncreiff —I am of the same opinion. It is not said that this shed was constructed in an unusual way, nor that it was unfit for its purpose in ordinary circumstances. The question comes to be,
Page: 822 ↓
On the whole matter I think the pursuer has stated no relevant case.
Lord Young was absent.
The Court dismissed the action.
Counsel for the Pursuer and Appellant— Campbell, K.C.— Younger. Agents— Oliphant & Murray, W.S.
Counsel for the Defenders and Respondents— Guy. Agents— Webster, Will, & Co., S.S.C.