Appendix Page 17

17

opinion, merely saying in connection with it, 'it may be that wider and other responsibilities might arise.' In commenting on this passage in Lord Shand's Opinion, Lord Kinnear, in the case of Kemp & Dougall v. Darngavil Coal Company, Limited, 1909 S.C. 1314, at page 1322, recognised that articles associated with a high degree of danger might call upon people who meddle with them for a corresponding degree of caution, and make them liable to people with whom the active party was not in any particular relation. The matter is again referred to only for the purpose of distinction, and the measure of the supplementary liability (of which Rylands v. Fletcher, cited supra, would furnish a sufficient explanation) again is not defined. In Campbell v. Morrison, 19 R. 282, ship carpenters had put up a gangway connecting a vessel with a dock on the order of the shipbuilders. The gangway proved defective, and a workman employed by a firm of engineers who had no relation with the carpenters or builders, sustained personal injury. It was clear that the workman had no relation with the carpenters either by contract or as the result of an invitation. The action which he raised against them was accordingly dismissed. It may be that if he had sued the shipbuilders upon invitation he might have been more fortunate. It was in the course of his opinion in this case that Lord Young observed that 'delict or quasi-delict was out of the question.' I do not find occasion to question this, because I do not see how this expression of opinion advances the defenders argument. The carpenters were the makers but not the users or controllers of the gangway. The most direct and important reference by Scottish Judges to this alleged doctrine of English law is, however, to be found in the Opinions which were pronounced by the learned Judges in the recent case of Mullen v. Barr & Company, Limited, 1929 S.C. 461.