Duthie v MacFish Ltd [2000] ScotCS 184 (6 July 2000)

Duthie v MacFish Ltd [2000] ScotCS 184 (6 July 2000)

Given the total loss of sight in one eye, reduced and vulnerable vision in the other, repeated unsuccessful surgeries, significant pain, cosmetic and psychological injury, and a serious risk of further deterioration, the case falls within the upper range of the JSB Guidelines (as uplifted by Heil v Rankin) for solatium. The multiplier for future loss of earnings is set at 12, reflecting limited but not absent employment prospects. Necessary services are awarded based on actual and anticipated support needs. The total award is reduced by 25% for contributory negligence.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 184
Parties
Pursuer: Brian Duthie; Defenders: MacFish Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim / Quantum of Damages After Liability and Contributory Negligence Agreed
Outcome
Decree for the pursuer for damages, reduced by 25% for contributory negligence.
Legal Topics
Damages Assessment, Contributory Negligence, Loss of Earnings, Psychological Injury, Solatium, Necessary Services
Tort Personal Injury Damages Assessment Contributory Negligence Loss of Earnings Psychological Injury Solatium Necessary Services

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Duthie

Pursuer

MacFish Limited

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim / Quantum of Damages After Liability and Contributory Negligence Agreed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate quantum of damages for the pursuer's injuries, including solatium, loss of earnings, and necessary services, given the extent of physical and psychological harm and contributory negligence?

Ratio Decidendi

Given the total loss of sight in one eye, reduced and vulnerable vision in the other, repeated unsuccessful surgeries, significant pain, cosmetic and psychological injury, and a serious risk of further deterioration, the case falls within the upper range of the JSB Guidelines (as uplifted by Heil v Rankin) for solatium. The multiplier for future loss of earnings is set at 12, reflecting limited but not absent employment prospects. Necessary services are awarded based on actual and anticipated support needs. The total award is reduced by 25% for contributory negligence.

Court Disposition

Decree for the pursuer for damages, reduced by 25% for contributory negligence.

Orders

  • Award of solatium: £75,000
  • Interest on past solatium: £3,650