Adams v. Town Council of Aberdeen

Subject_1 Reparation Subject_2 Negligence Subject_3 Street Subject_4 Open Manhole. Facts: A boy was injured by falling into a manhole which had been opened in a street in town, and at which several men were engaged at work. In an action of damages against the employers of the men, it appeared that the men engaged at the manhole had used all reasonable precautions, and that the boy was at the time of the accident looking Page: 571 ↓

The Sheriff-Substitute ( Dove Wilson ) found that the pursuer had failed to prove that the accident happened through the fault or negligence of the defenders' servants, and therefore assoilzied the defenders from the conclusions of the action.

The circumstances of the pursuer's son being very young does not make much difference. He was old enough to know that he should not have been in the middle of the streets without keeping a look out, and if he was not old enough to take care of himself, he should not have been permitted to be where he was without someone to look after him. The boy's youth would only have been a material point in the event of distinct negligence having been proved on the defenders' part, and I cannot say that I think that the having the manhole open was, in the circumstances, an act of negligence.”

The pursuer appealed, and argued—It was the duty of the defenders to have had the manhole fenced in a sufficient manner in the interests of the public using the thoroughfare. But for the insufficient fencing the accident would not have happened, and the defenders' must be held liable for the omission.

Authorities — Auld v. M'Bey , February 17, 1881, 8 R. 495 ; Burton v. Moorhead , July 1, 1881, 8 R. 892 ; Frasers v. Edinburgh Street Tramways Company , December 2, 1882, 10 R. 264 .