Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Mrs Hannah Joiner or Gilligan, wife of and residing with William Gilligan at Woddrop Street, Bridgeton, Glasgow, with her husband's consent and concurrence, brought an action in the Sheriff Court at Hamilton against William Robb, cattle-dealer, Flemington Farm, Newton, Cambuslang, to recover £250 as damages for nervous shock which she alleged she had sustained through the fault of the defender.

The pursuer, who stated that on the afternoon of 25th November 1909 she was in the kitchen of her mother's house at 89 Dalmarnock Road, Glasgow, averred — “(Cond. 3) Whilst the pursuer was in said kitchen she was suddenly confronted by a cow which had entered her mother's house and come into the kitchen. The pursuer was at once thrown into a state of nervous terror through the sudden and unexpected appearance of said cow, and through the fear of actual physical injury resulting from the presence of the animal in the confined space of a small kitchen. The pursuer, notwithstanding her terror, made some effort to turn said cow out of said kitchen, and ultimately it proceeded to another room in said house, and was after some time driven out of the house by the assistance of some neighbours. Thereafter the pursuer learned that the said cow belonged to the defender, and was being driven along with several others from the cattle market to defender's farm at Flemington in the charge of a young boy. The pursuer believes and avers that said boy was incapable, on account of his youth and inexperience, of driving cattle through the busy streets of Glasgow, and in particular she avers that the defender's said servant recklessly, negligently, and unnecessarily set a dog, which accompanied him and which belonged to defender, at said cow, with the result that the cow got frightened and made a rush for the close in which pursuer's mother resides, and entered the house. For the said negligence of his servant the defender is responsible. (Cond. 4) The pursuer sustained a very severe nervous shock as a result of said incident. She was hysterical for a considerable time, and had to be put to bed, her pulse being high, and her heart was slightly affected. She had to remain in bed for several weeks thereafter, being constantly attended by her medical man, and in point of fact she is still in her doctor's hands. She has not yet recovered from the effects of the fright, and it is believed and averred that the effects will be permanent. She has become thin and emaciated as a result, and suffers periodically from diarrhœa. She is easily frightened, and is unable to appear on the streets unaccompanied. She has been forced to stop feeding her baby and to bring it up on the bottle, and in the circumstances the sum sued for is fair and reasonable compensation.”

The pursuer pleaded — “The pursuer having been injured through the fault of the defender or of those for whom he is responsible, decree should be granted as craved, with expenses.”

The defender pleaded—“(1) The action is irrelevant. (3) Any injury sustained by the pursuer not having been caused by fault or negligence on the part of the defender or anyone for whom he is responsible, he is not liable to the pursuer in compensation.”

The Sheriff-Substitute ( Thomson) having allowed a proof, the pursuer appealed to the Court of Session for jury trial. She proposed the following issue—“Whether, on or about the 25th day of November 1909 and in or about 89 Dalmarnock Road, Glasgow, the pursuer was injured in her person through thef ault of the defender, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer? Damages laid at £250 sterling.”

The defender objected to the relevancy, and on the case appearing in the Summar Roll, argued—“A cow was a domestic animal and there was no ground of action apart from negligence. But there was no sufficient averment of negligence. There was, in particular, no averment that defender did not exercise reasonable care in the selection of the boy, or that even if the boy was incompetent he was to blame for what took place. The injury, in any case, was too remote. There was no physical impact. All that was averred was that the pursuer was suffering from ‘shock.’ There was nothing to connect her alleged suffering with the defender's alleged negligence.” Glancy v. Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company, February 18, 1898, 25 R. 581, 35 S.L.R. 462; Dulieu v. White & Sons, [1901] 2 KB 669.

The pursuer was not called on for a reply.