Bowes & Ors v The Highland Council [2017] ScotCS CSOH_53 (24 March 2017)

Bowes & Ors v The Highland Council [2017] ScotCS CSOH_53 (24 March 2017)

The Highland Council owed a duty of care to the deceased as the roads authority responsible for the bridge and its parapets. The Council knew the parapet was defective, non-compliant, and its containment capacity compromised. It failed to implement interim safety measures or continue monitoring, contrary to engineering advice and common law duty. The defective parapet failed to contain the vehicle, directly causing the deceased's death. The Council's breach of duty was causative of the fatality.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSOH_53
Parties
Pursuer: Anna Marie Bowes; Pursuer: David Ewan Bowes; Pursuer: Jemma Louise Illingworth; Pursuer: Anne Scott; Pursuer: June Bowes; Pursuer: Brian Bowes; Pursuer: Deborah Bowes; Pursuer: Christine Grant; Defender: The Highland Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Fatal Accident Claim / Proof on Liability
Outcome
Liability established against defender
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Negligence, Bridge Safety, Maintenance of Public Infrastructure, Interim Safety Measures
Tort Public Authority Liability Personal Injury Duty of Care Negligence Bridge Safety Maintenance of Public Infrastructure Interim Safety Measures

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anna Marie Bowes

Pursuer

David Ewan Bowes

Pursuer

Jemma Louise Illingworth

Pursuer

Anne Scott

Pursuer

June Bowes

Pursuer

Brian Bowes

Pursuer

Deborah Bowes

Pursuer

Christine Grant

Pursuer

The Highland Council

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Fatal Accident Claim / Proof on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the defender owe a duty of care to the deceased regarding the maintenance and safety of the bridge parapet?
  2. 2 Was the defender negligent in failing to implement interim safety measures or close the bridge given known defects?
  3. 3 Did the defective parapet cause the deceased's death?

Ratio Decidendi

The Highland Council owed a duty of care to the deceased as the roads authority responsible for the bridge and its parapets. The Council knew the parapet was defective, non-compliant, and its containment capacity compromised. It failed to implement interim safety measures or continue monitoring, contrary to engineering advice and common law duty. The defective parapet failed to contain the vehicle, directly causing the deceased's death. The Council's breach of duty was causative of the fatality.

Court Disposition

Liability established against defender

Orders

  • Defender found liable for death of deceased due to breach of duty of care.
  • Quantum of damages as agreed in joint minute to be paid to pursuers.