BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Teasdale v. Monkland Railways Co. [1866] ScotLR 2_6_1 (16 May 1866) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1866/02SLR0006_1.html Cite as: [1866] SLR 2_6_1, [1866] ScotLR 2_6_1 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 6↓
Form of issue in an action of damages for injuries sustained by a station-master when travelling on a railway engine, the defenders, the railway company, denying that he had any right to be on the engine at the time.
In this case the following issue was proposed by the pursuer:—
“Whether, on or about the 23d day of April 1864, the pursuer, while proceeding to Airdrie on one of the defenders' engines, was severely injured by a quantity of steam and boiling water suddenly issuing from the firebox in connection with the boiler, in consequence of the defective state of the said engine, through the fault of the defenders, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer?”
The pursuer was station-master at Slamannan, but he alleged that the defenders, through their manager, had stipulated with him, as part of their contract with him, that they were to convey him on one of their engines from Airdrie to Slamannan every morning, and back to Airdrie every evening. This was denied by the defenders, and they objected to the issue proposed, that it did not include this disputed matter. They founded on the case of Hamilton v. Caledonian Railway Company, 18 D. 999, and 19 D. 457.
The Court altered the issue to the effect of adding after the word “engines,” the words, “with the leave of the defenders.”
Counsel for Pursuer— Mr Scott and Mr F. W. Clark. Agent— Mr D. F. Bridgeford, S.S.C.
Counsel for Defenders—The Solicitor-General and Mr Mackenzie. Agents— Messrs A. G. R. & W. Ellis, W.S.
