NIGEL DICK AGAINST JOSEPH MERRICK [2024] ScotCS CSOH_39 (03 April 2024)

NIGEL DICK AGAINST JOSEPH MERRICK [2024] ScotCS CSOH_39 (03 April 2024)

Both parties were at fault: the pursuer for failing to sufficiently reduce speed and keep a proper lookout when emerging from a hazardous junction, and the defender for overtaking another cyclist and proceeding at excessive speed close to the junction without adequate anticipation of hazards. The greater share of blame lies with the defender, who was travelling at a speed above the design speed for the path and failed to exercise due care in the circumstances. A just and equitable apportionment is 35% blame to the pursuer and 65% to the defender.

Citation
[2024] ScotCS CSOH_39
Parties
Pursuer: Nigel Dick; Defender: Joseph Merrick
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Liability apportioned 35% to pursuer, 65% to defender.
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Cyclist Collision, Apportionment of Liability
Tort Personal Injury Negligence Contributory Negligence Cyclist Collision Apportionment of Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel Dick

Pursuer

Joseph Merrick

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who was at fault in causing the cycling collision?
  2. 2 What is the just and equitable apportionment of blame between the parties under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945?

Ratio Decidendi

Both parties were at fault: the pursuer for failing to sufficiently reduce speed and keep a proper lookout when emerging from a hazardous junction, and the defender for overtaking another cyclist and proceeding at excessive speed close to the junction without adequate anticipation of hazards. The greater share of blame lies with the defender, who was travelling at a speed above the design speed for the path and failed to exercise due care in the circumstances. A just and equitable apportionment is 35% blame to the pursuer and 65% to the defender.

Court Disposition

Liability apportioned 35% to pursuer, 65% to defender.

Orders

  • Defender found liable for 65% of the pursuer's damages, subject to assessment.