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 £1, 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 >> Walker v. Martin [1867] ScotLR 3_356 (30 March 1867) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1867/03SLR0356.html Cite as: [1867] ScotLR 3_356, [1867] SLR 3_356 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 356↓
In an action of damages by a young girl for personal injury caused by unfenced machinery, £30 awarded.
This is an advocation from the Sheriff Court of Lanarkshire of an action in which Martin sued the advocator for damages in respect of injuries sustained by her while in his service in his bleach-field at Castlebank, Partick. The pursuer was injured at one of the windows in the wall of one of the rooms at the work, in which there is a series of wheels called dash or cog wheels, into which the cloth for bleaching is put, with a shaft and gearing to drive the wheels between them and the wall. While standing there the dash wheel caught her dress, and drew her into the machinery, by which she was seriously injured, having had the flesh on her thighs and back lacerated. The defence was that at the time the accident happened the pursuer was not engaged at her usual employment, but had left it prior to the usual hour of ceasing to work, and was idling away her time; that her duty in the defender's works never required her to be in that part of the works at which she was injured; that she had no right to be there; and that the accident was caused through her own fault.
The Sheriff-Substitute (Murray) assoilzied the defender.
The Sheriff (Alison) altered, and modified the damage to £30.
The defender advocated.
To-day the Court adhered to the judgment of the Sheriff.
Counsel for Advocator— Mr Shand and Mr Brand. Agents— Ronald & Ritchie, S.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent— Mr Pringle. Agent— J. D. Bruce, S.S.C.
