GLASGOW CORPORATION  VS. TAYLOR 1922 1 AC 44

FACTS OF THE CASE

This matter was brought before the house of lords on nov 18,1921. The father of a seven-year-old child who died after eating the berries of a deadly plant called atropa belladonna growing in a public area in Glasgow sued the city to seek compensation for his sons death. The berries of the toxic plant were not fenced,and their look was appealing in nature , which would ordinarily attract youngster . the area where the corporation planted the barriers was adjacent to a public garden, which was open to children and individuals of all ages. The gate to the berry-growing area was readly accessible by small children ,and it was part of a garden that was frequently visited by the youngster in that neighborhood. The boy went into the area where toxic berries were growing with some other kids and ate a few of them. He had respiratory issues,and despite receiving promt medical assistance,he died within a short time. The defendants were aware that the berries they were producing were deadly,but they made no precautions to inform the public about this.

As the garden was under the councils authority and maintenance,the boys father filled a claim against the corporation for negligence.

ISSUES

The question for the court was whether this raised any grounds of appeal for their to be a trial against the defendants for their liability. It was important for the court to consider in this case whether the defendants was negligent in the death of the claimant . it was particularly important to understand the steps that the defendant had taken to prevent the danger caused by the fact that the poisonous berries in the question would be particularly attractive to young children.

ARGUMENTS

LORD ATIKSON:  My Lord ,in this case the pursuer claims , to recover from the appellants a sum of 500 , together with a sum of 100 . for expenses, as a solution for the loss of his son , a boy of seven year of age who was poisoned by eating berries of an atropa belladonna shrub that grew in the botanic garden ,Glasgow of which garden the appellants are the proprietors and custodians.

The appellants are bound to permit ,or do in fact permit their garden to be used as a public park open to all members of the public, including even those of the immature age of seven years, though these letters should be unattended by person capable of taking care of them.

THE LORD PROVOST : Magistrate and council may from time to time make such byelaws as they shall think fit for the good government and regulation of the said public parks , gardens  and open spaces and of the museums, galleries and collection of natural history , science and art and other buildings and person frequenting the same and of the superintendence curators.

The forty fisrt section of this statute provides for the publication and posting in the parks of these byelaws when made. It was admitted ,however that no byelaws of the kind mentioned were ever made. The appelants must be taken , I think ,to have assumed the responsibility whatever it was ,of this omission.

JUDGEMENTS

The court held that the Glasgow corporation was liable in this instance. They had permitted childrens to go on to the land and it is understandable that the berries would have appealed to visting children thus representing a danger. The defendants were aware of this danger caused by the poisonous berries and did nothing to prevent the damage. On the basis , the action was reqires to proceed to trial.

REFRENCES

1. YOUTUBE
2. CASE PLEADERS
3. CASE MINE .COM

This article is written by sushant kumar shrivastava of Lloyd school of law , intern at legal vidhiya.

Admin