Scottish Court of Session Decisions

An action of damages for personal injury was raised in the Sheriff Court at Glasgow by James M'Culloch, stevedore's labourer, 53 Piccadilly Street, Glasgow, against the Trustees of the Clyde Navigation.

The pursuer averred that on 18th November 1902 he was employed in one of the defender's sheds in connection with the loading of a ship at one of their quays. “(Cond. 2) … Said shed is composed of a wall of bricks on the side facing the street, with numerous openings or ‘blinds’ in same for the passage of traffic from the street into the shed, and on the side next the quay there are a number of iron pillars at intervals of 32 feet, which support the roof. The shed in question extends for several hundred yards without any cross walls or partitions of any kind. On said date a fire sprang out at one part of the shed at a considerable distance from where the pursuer was working … Immediately thereafter the roof of the shed collapsed for several hundred yards distance, and the pursuer was knocked down and sustained very severe … injuries to his head through the said collapse of the roof of the shed … (Cond. 3) The pursuer believes and avers that the cause of the said accident was that the said shed was improperly constructed and unsafe, in respect that the roof, which was constructed in one connected length for several hundred yards, had no support for a distance of several hundred yards beyond the lateral support of the brick wall on the street side and the pillars on the quay side, and in particular had no cross walls or central pillars, or other cross stays or supports such as were necessary to render the erection stable and secure, and consequently unable to stand the fire in one part without the whole roof of the shed falling. This could have been remedied by the erection of bulkheads, or cross partitions, or dividing walls, which would at once have given sufficient support to the roof of the shed, and would also have prevented the fire spreading too readily, and would at the same time have served all purposes of through traffic as well as the present sheds had openings or ‘blinds’ for traffic been made in same, the falling of the roof being only prevented spreading further by the only bulkhead in a space of 300 yards or thereabout… . Had there been division walls or bulkheads at short intervals the roof could not have collapsed beyond the scene of the fire, and in particular could not possibly have collapsed at the place where pursuer was working. (Cond. 4) The pursuer believes and avers that the defenders were well aware of the defective construction of the shed, and had previously had their attention drawn to the defective condition of their shed and to its flimsy character, and to the fact that if a fire broke out it was dangerous owing to its construction; and the pursuer believes and avers that this accident was entirely caused through the defenders' negligence in failing to take steps to remedy the dangerous and unsafe condition of said shed.”

The pursuer pleaded—“The pursuer having been injured through the negligence of the defenders or their servants, is entitled to reparation from them, with expenses, as craved.”

The defenders pleaded—“(1) The pursuer's statements are irrelevant, and insufficient to support his plea-in-law.”

On 12th March 1903 the Sheriff-Substitute ( Strachan) allowed a proof before answer.

The pursuer appealed for jury trial.

At the calling of the cause counsel for the defenders maintained that no relevant case was set forth upon record.

The appellant maintained that the case was relevant, and should be sent to a jury.