Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was an action raised in the Sheriff Court of Lanarkshire at the instance of the representatives of the deceased William Simpson against Messrs Burrell & Son, shipowners, Glasgow, and John Paton, stevedore, Glasgow, for damages in respect of the death of William Simpson. The summons concluded for payment by the defenders “jointly and severally, or severally, of the sum of £1000.”

The pursuer averred that William Simpson while in the employment of John Paton was engaged in working on board the s.s. “Strathavon,” which was the property of the other defenders, who had employed John Paton to do certain work thereon; that he was ordered by Paton to remove the hatch-covers from the hold, and that while doing so the supports gave way and he fell to the bottom of the hold, receiving injuries which caused his death. She averred that the accident was caused by the weakness and insufficiency of one of the beams supporting the hatch in question. Sheaverred further—“(Cond 5) The said accident was also caused through the fault of the other defender Paton, in culpably failing to see (as was his duty before setting his men to work) that the ways and plant used by the deceased in the course of his employment were sufficient and in good order, in so far as the said thwart-ship beam was weak and bent, the said hatch-covers were off the square and had not sufficient hold, and there was only one defective ‘fore and after,’ in place of four strong ‘fore and afters.’ It is usual, necessary, and safe in ships of the class in question for the stevedore to see that the ways and plant are in sufficient order before setting his men to work, to have the thwart-ship beam straight and of sufficient strength and length to support the ‘fore and afters,’ and the covers in their places, to have the hatchcovers fitted evenly and with sufficient hold of the supports, and to have four strong ‘fore and afters’ supporting the covers. The said accident was also caused through defender Paton culpably ordering the deceased to remove the hatch-covers. It was his duty as stevedore to remove said hatch covers, as is usual, necessary, and safe in vessels of this description at the Queen's Dock, Glasgow.”

The pursuers pleaded—“(1) The said William Simpson, while a workman in the service of the defender Paton, having been killed through the fault of the said defender, the pursuers are entitled to reparation from the said defender, with interest and expenses, as craved.”

The defender Paton pleaded—“The action is irrelevant.”

The Sheriff-Substitute on 7th February 1896 allowed parties a proof before answer.

Page: 414↓

The pursuer appealed to the Court of Session for jury trial, and proposed issues against the defender Paton at common law and under the Employers Liability Act.

Argued for respondent Paton—There was no relevant ground of action against this respondent. A stevedore was not responsible for the defects of the tackle in a ship belonging to another person. It was no part of his duty to warrant the condition of such tackle, there being no special circumstances alleged which would impose such a duty upon him. Accordingly no liability attached to him. This had been clearly laid down in the cases of Nelson v. Scott Croall & Sons, January 30, 1892, 19 R. 425; Robinson v. John Watson, Limited, November 30, 1892, 20 R. 144.

Argued for reclaimers—There was a sufficient allegation of fault on the part of the stevedore. It was his duty to see that the parts of the ship which he and his men were going to use were in proper order. The defects were not latent, and might easily have been discovered, and accordingly he was liable to his servants for an accident caused by these defects.