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 >> Gillon v. Ramage & Ferguson [1885] ScotLR 22_796 (2 July 1885) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1885/22SLR0796.html Cite as: [1885] ScotLR 22_796, [1885] SLR 22_796 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 796↓
Form of issue adjusted in an action of damages for personal injuries (laid at common law and under the Employers Liability Act 1880, 43 and 44 Vict. eap. 42) where the pursuer averred that he had been injured at defenders' works through their fault while in the employment either of the defenders, or of certain contractors who were carrying on their work in the defenders' works.
This was an action of damages for personal injuries. The pursuer averred that while in the employment of the defenders, within their shipbuilding-yard at Leith, or in the service of two parties named who had contracted with the defenders for the rivetting of a ship in process of construction, he was injured by the fall of certain iron plates, which took place in consequence of either the defective condition of the barrel of the winch by which they were lowered into the hold of the vessel, and which was supplied by the defenders, or of an improper mode of carrying on the work. The defenders denied that the pursuer was in their employment, that the winch was defective, or that their mode of work was improper, and averred that the pursuer was in the employment of independent contractors, the parties named.
The action was laid alternatively at common law and under the Employers Liability Act 1880, was raised in the Sheriff Court at Edinburgh, and was appealed by the pursuer to the Court of Session for trial by jury.
The pursuer proposed this issue—“Whether the pursuer while working in the defenders' works, Leith Docks, was on or about the 10th day of February 1885 injured by the fall of certain plates through the fault of the defender, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer.”
The defenders objected to this issue, and contended that it should read—“Whether the pursuer, while working in the employment of the defenders, in their works at Leith Docks,” &c. They cited Morrison v. Baird & Co., Dec. 2, 1882, 10 R. 271.
The Court, in respect of the alternative averments by the pursuer of his having been in the employment of the defenders, or of the alleged independent contractors, approved of the issue as proposed.
Counsel for Pursuer— Guthrie Smith— A. S. Thomson. Agent— Walter R. Patrick, Solicitor.
Counsel for Defenders— A. T. Young— Orr. Agents— Adam & Winchester, S.S.C.
