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.
Subject_1 Reparation Subject_2 Master and Servant Subject_3 Negligence Subject_4 Defective Stair Erected by Another Contractor. Facts: In an action of damages against an employer by a servant who in the course of his work on some unfinished premises, and while going up a stair built by another contractor, sustained injuries owing to a defect in one of the steps— held that the employer having no reason to doubt the sufficiency of the stairs for the purpose for which they were built, had no duty of personal examination, and was accordingly not liable.
He pleaded—“(2) The pursuer's alleged injuries not having been caused by any fault or negligence of the defender or of anyone for whom he is responsible, the defenders should be assoilzied from the conclusions of the action with expenses.”
On 7th July the Sheriff-Substitute found in favour of the pursuer and assessed the damages at £50.
“I may add that while it is of course possible that the accident might not have happened had the step which gave way been supported by a centre butt, the proof does not in my opinion warrant a finding that such a support was required, assuming the step to be in itself free from defect, or that its absence was a defect which ought to have attracted the attention of the defender.”
Lord President —Responsibility is sought here to be attached to the respondent on two grounds.
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.