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 as she voluntarily placed her foot on the accelerator and failed to use the hand controls, causing the accident. The garage (second defender) was not liable as there was no evidence they were informed of a need for a pedal guard or that such a device was required for Mrs Carter's condition. The pursuer was not contributorily negligent. The pursuer failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that his stroke was caused by the accident.

Citation
[2005] CSOH 2 A974
Parties
Pursuer: John Carter; First Defender: Kathleen Carter (deceased), represented by personal representatives; Second Defender: Second Defenders (garage); Fourth Defender: Fourth Defender (fitter of hand controls)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Pursuer awarded limited damages; defenders largely assoilzied except for first defender's liability for minor injury.
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Accidents, Contributory Negligence, Duty of Care, Causation of Injury, Product Liability
Tort Personal Injury Negligence Motor Vehicle Accidents Contributory Negligence Duty of Care Causation of Injury Product Liability

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Carter

Pursuer

Kathleen Carter (deceased), represented by personal representatives

First Defender

Second Defenders (garage)

Second Defender

Fourth Defender (fitter of hand controls)

Fourth Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mrs Carter was negligent in causing the accident
  2. 2 Whether the second defender (garage) owed a duty of care regarding fitting of hand controls and pedal guard
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer was contributorily negligent

Ratio Decidendi

The court found Mrs Carter negligent as she voluntarily placed her foot on the accelerator and failed to use the hand controls, causing the accident. The garage (second defender) was not liable as there was no evidence they were informed of a need for a pedal guard or that such a device was required for Mrs Carter's condition. The pursuer was not contributorily negligent. The pursuer failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that his stroke was caused by the accident.

Court Disposition

Pursuer awarded limited damages; defenders largely assoilzied except for first defender's liability for minor injury.

Orders

  • Decree for pursuer in the sum of £1,500 with interest at 8% from 29 June 1997 until payment.
  • First defender's pleas-in-law repelled.