Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Good v. Christie [1866] ScotLR 1_253_1 (31 March 1866)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1866/01SLR0253_1.html
Cite as: [1866] ScotLR 1_253_1, [1866] SLR 1_253_1
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session
Page: 253↓
Court of Session Inner House Second Division.
v.
Facts:
In an action of damages by a father for the loss of his son through the alleged fault of the defenders—verdict for the defenders.
This was an action of damages at the instance of William Good, collier, residing at Pathhead Ford, Crichton, Edinburgh, against John Christie, coalmaster, Arniston, Cockpen, Edinburgh, for loss and injury sustained by him by the death of his son, Charles Colt Good, while engaged in assisting his father in the working of a crane in the defender's coal-pit. The issues sent to trial were as follows:—
“1. Whether, on or about the 16th day of March 1865, the now deceased Charles Colt Good, son of the pursuer, was, in the employment of the defender, engaged in the working of a crane in the defender's coal-pit, known as the Edgehead Engine Pit, in the parish of Cranston, and county of Edinburgh; and whether, while so employed, the said Charles Colt Good was killed in consequence of improper construction of said crane, by and through the fault of the defender—to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer?”
2. Whether, on or about the 16th day of March 1865, the now deceased Charles Colt Good, son of the pursuer, was, in the employment of the defender, engaged in the working of a crane in the defender's coal-pit, known as the Edgehead Engine Pit, in the parish of Cranston, and county of Edinburgh; and whether, while so employed, the said Charles Colt Good was killed in consequence of the failure of the defender to provide a cranesman to work the said crane, by and through the fault of the defender—to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer?”
Damages laid at £500.
The Lord Justice-Clerk, in charging the jury, observed that the principle of law was undoubted that all ordinary and reasonable care must be taken by masters of those engaged in their employment, and where this had not been done they were responsible for the consequences of this neglect. When, however, an accident occurred through the carelessness of the workman himself, he could not claim reparation for the injury occasioned to him. Further, he directed the jury that if they were satisfied on the evidence that the deceased, a boy of twelve or thirteen years of age, was killed in consequence of his father, the pursuer, exposing him to a sure and known danger to which it was improper to expose a boy of that age, and to which it was not necessary to expose him in the performance of his (the pursuer's) contract with his employer, then the defender is not in law responsible to the pursuer for the injury sustained by him in the loss of his son. If a workman exposes himself to a sure and known danger to which it was not incumbent upon him to expose himself, he could not claim damages from the defender; and the same doctrine applies to the present case.
The jury, after a short absence, unanimously returned a verdict for the defender on both issues—the chancellor observing that the jury thought it their duty to express a strong opinion that the practice of employing boys of so tender an age in work of so tender a character was very blameable.
The Lord Justice-Clerk—That is a very just expression of opinion, and I entirely concur with you.
Counsel for the Pursuer— Mr Watson and Mr Bannatyne. Agent— Mr John D. Bruce, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Defender— Mr Shand and Mr Maclean. Agent— Mr John Leishman, W.S.