Penman v Blue Cap Logistics Ltd [1999] ScotCS 65 (3 March 1999)

Penman v Blue Cap Logistics Ltd [1999] ScotCS 65 (3 March 1999)

The pleadings against the driver are irrelevant due to lack of factual averments supporting the alleged duties. The pleadings against the defenders directly are relevant, as the breakdown and defective lights constitute prima facie evidence of negligence under Binnie. Proof Before Answer is appropriate on the merits against the defenders, but not for the claim under section 8 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 65
Parties
Pursuer: John Penman; Defenders: Blue Cap Logistics Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Procedure Roll (pleadings Review)
Outcome
Defenders' first plea-in-law sustained in part; Article 3 and specified sentences in Article 4 deleted; Proof Before Answer allowed on remaining merits; claim under section 8 put out By Order for amendment or withdrawal.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Negligence, Mechanical Failure, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Loss of Earnings, Provision of Services
Tort Personal Injury Negligence Duty of Care Mechanical Failure Res Ipsa Loquitur Loss of Earnings Provision of 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Penman

Pursuer

Blue Cap Logistics Ltd

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Procedure Roll (pleadings Review)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the driver owed a duty to prevent the lorry from being an obstruction
  2. 2 Whether the defenders were negligent in maintaining the lorry and its lights
  3. 3 Whether prima facie evidence of negligence arises from mechanical failure

Ratio Decidendi

The pleadings against the driver are irrelevant due to lack of factual averments supporting the alleged duties. The pleadings against the defenders directly are relevant, as the breakdown and defective lights constitute prima facie evidence of negligence under Binnie. Proof Before Answer is appropriate on the merits against the defenders, but not for the claim under section 8 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982.

Court Disposition

Defenders' first plea-in-law sustained in part; Article 3 and specified sentences in Article 4 deleted; Proof Before Answer allowed on remaining merits; claim under section 8 put out By Order for amendment or withdrawal.

Orders

  • Article 3 deleted from pleadings
  • Fifth last and third last sentences of Article 4 deleted