The pursuer, a woman with limited vision was injured falling into a hole for which the defender had responsibility. The defender replied that the hole was protected by a water hydrant.
Held: The claim failed. There was evidence that the protection of the water hydrant was not adequate even as regards persons with good sight.
Lord Justice-Clerk Scott Dickson said: ‘I demur to the view that blind people are not entitled to walk about the streets unless accompanied by some person in charge of them . . this pursuer was entitled to be on the street; and was entitled, in my judgment, to assume that the street was reasonably safe for her.’
Lord Dundas said: ‘It would not be easy to lay down in a sentence or a couple of sentences the whole law applicable to the subject; something must always depend upon the facts to which you are going to apply the law. I think in each case the jury would have to consider, with regard to a blind person, whether that blind person was, in the circumstances, fairly and reasonably treated by the Corporation or other defenders – whether he had or had not been duly warned and reasonably guarded.’
Lord Salvesen (who was the presiding judge at the trial) said: ‘The streets of any city are open to be used by persons of more or less defective eyesight, hearing, and capacity and I think, as a general proposition in law, that the Magistrates must take note of that fact and, if they are guilty of negligence, they cannot escape the consequences by saying that a more vigilant person than the one who was injured would in all probability have escaped injury.’
Judges:
Lord Justice-Clerk Scott Dickson, Lord Dundas, Lord Salvesen
Citations:
[1920] SC 590
Cited by:
Cited – Woodland v Essex County Council SC 23-Oct-2013
The claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Scotland, Negligence
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.517229
