Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Hugh Waugh, brakesman, and James Inglis, weigher, both in the employment of the Steel Company of Scotland (Limited), at their works at Blochairn, near Glasgow, raised the present actions against the City of Glasgow Union Railway Company for damages for personal injuries by falling in the darkness of a winter morning over an embankment on to the defenders' railway.
The Lord Ordinary ( Lee ) after hearing counsel on this plea in the Procedure Roll, allowed the pursuer in each case to lodge an issue.
The only question at present, however, is, whether the pursuer's allegations are relevant and sufficient to support the statement in the condescendence of a failure of duty on the part of the defenders in regard to the fencing of that part of the embankment over which the pursuer fell.
In deciding this question I cannot assume that the engine was not stopped at the right place. I must assume that the pursuer may be able to prove his allegations, which, fairly read, seem to me to import that he got off the engine at a place where it was legitimate and intelligible that the engine should stop before advancing to the points.
It was decided in the case of Clark v. The Caledonian Railway Company , 5 R. 273 , and also in the case of Robertson v. Adamson, 24 D. 1231, that the proprietors of railways or other works are under no such general obligation to fence bridges as to make them liable in all cases where an injury is caused by the want of fencing.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.