McKnight & Anor v Clydeside Buses Ltd & Ors [1998] ScotCS 109 (23 December 1998)

McKnight & Anor v Clydeside Buses Ltd & Ors [1998] ScotCS 109 (23 December 1998)

The defenders have relevantly averred a common law duty of care against Glasgow City Council regarding the provision and adequacy of warning signage for known hazards, and a relevant case of fault against Railtrack PLC regarding signage on the bridges. The pleadings against Mima Dunlop (third third party) are...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1998] ScotCS 109
Parties
Pursuers: Joseph Munro McKnight and Mrs Joan McKnight; Defenders: Clydeside Buses Limited; First Third Party: Glasgow City Council; Second Third Party: Railtrack PLC; Third Third Party: Mima Dunlop
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 December 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Reparation (personal Injury/fatal Accident) / Procedure Roll Hearing on Relevancy and Specification of Pleadings
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed against Glasgow City Council and Railtrack PLC; third party notice against Mima Dunlop dismissed.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care of Roads Authorities, Liability for Road Signage and Hazards, Statutory Duties Under Roads (scotland) Act 1984, Common Law Negligence, Causation in Tort, Statutory Interpretation of Railways Consolidation Clauses (scotland) Act 1845
Tort Law Public Authority Liability Road Traffic Law Duty of Care of Roads Authorities Liability for Road Signage and Hazards Statutory Duties Under Roads (scotland) Act 1984 Common Law Negligence Causation in Tort +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Munro McKnight and Mrs Joan McKnight

Pursuers

Clydeside Buses Limited

Defenders

Glasgow City Council

First Third Party

Railtrack PLC

Second Third Party

Mima Dunlop

Third Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Reparation (personal Injury/fatal Accident) / Procedure Roll Hearing on Relevancy and Specification of Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Glasgow City Council owed a common law or statutory duty of care regarding road signage and warnings for low bridges
  2. 2 Whether Railtrack PLC owed a statutory or common law duty regarding bridge height and signage
  3. 3 Whether Mima Dunlop owed a duty of care as a lead driver to the bus driver following her

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders have relevantly averred a common law duty of care against Glasgow City Council regarding the provision and adequacy of warning signage for known hazards, and a relevant case of fault against Railtrack PLC regarding signage on the bridges. The pleadings against Mima Dunlop (third third party) are fundamentally irrelevant due to lack of factual averment of duty or causation. All cases except against the third third party are suitable for proof before answer.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed against Glasgow City Council and Railtrack PLC; third party notice against Mima Dunlop dismissed.

Orders

  • Case against Glasgow City Council and Railtrack PLC remitted to proof before answer.
  • Third party notice against Mima Dunlop dismissed.