Carter v. Carter & Ors [2005] ScotCS CSOH_2 (11 January 2005)

Carter v. Carter & Ors [2005] ScotCS CSOH_2 (11 January 2005)

The court found Mrs Carter negligent in her driving, but found no breach of duty by the garage (second defender) as they were not made aware of a need for a pedal guard and had no duty to investigate further. The pursuer was not contributorily negligent. The pursuer failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that his stroke was caused by the accident, so damages were limited to those for the physical injuries sustained in the crash, not the stroke.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSOH_2
Parties
Pursuer: John Carter; Defenders: Kathleen Carter (deceased) & Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Pursuer's first plea-in-law sustained; defenders' pleas repelled as specified; decree for pursuer in sum of £1,500 with interest at 8% from 29 June 1997 until payment.
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Accidents, Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Causation, Damages
Tort Personal Injury Negligence Motor Vehicle Accidents Contributory Negligence Causation Damages

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Carter

Pursuer

Kathleen Carter (deceased) & Others

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mrs Carter was negligent in causing the accident
  2. 2 Whether the garage (second defender) was negligent in failing to fit a pedal guard or instruct on safe use
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer was contributorily negligent

Ratio Decidendi

The court found Mrs Carter negligent in her driving, but found no breach of duty by the garage (second defender) as they were not made aware of a need for a pedal guard and had no duty to investigate further. The pursuer was not contributorily negligent. The pursuer failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that his stroke was caused by the accident, so damages were limited to those for the physical injuries sustained in the crash, not the stroke.

Court Disposition

Pursuer's first plea-in-law sustained; defenders' pleas repelled as specified; decree for pursuer in sum of £1,500 with interest at 8% from 29 June 1997 until payment.

Orders

  • Decree for pursuer in sum of £1,500 with interest at 8% from 29 June 1997 until payment
  • Fourth defender assoilzied (absolved) by agreement