Umphray v. Ganson Brothers [1917] ScotLR 377 (28 February 1917)

Umphray v. Ganson Brothers [1917] ScotLR 377 (28 February 1917)

The driver of the defenders' motor car was negligent in failing to draw sufficiently to the right and in passing the horse at an excessive speed without slowing down, resulting in injury to the pursuer's horse. The accident was caused by this negligence, and there was no contributory negligence by the pursuer's servant.

Citation
[1917] ScotLR 377
Parties
Pursuer: William Hay Umphray; Defenders: Ganson Brothers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 February 1917
Procedural Posture
Reparation (negligence) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House
Outcome
Appeal refused; interlocutor of Sheriff affirmed as varied.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Reparation, Motor Vehicle Liability, Contributory Negligence
Tort Road Traffic Law Negligence Reparation Motor Vehicle Liability Contributory Negligence

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Hay Umphray

Pursuer

Ganson Brothers

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Reparation (negligence) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the driver of the motor car was negligent in passing a led horse on a narrow road without sufficient care
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's servant was contributorily negligent in leading the horse
  3. 3 Interpretation of the Motor Cars (Use and Construction) (Scotland) Order 1904, Article IV (3)

Ratio Decidendi

The driver of the defenders' motor car was negligent in failing to draw sufficiently to the right and in passing the horse at an excessive speed without slowing down, resulting in injury to the pursuer's horse. The accident was caused by this negligence, and there was no contributory negligence by the pursuer's servant.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; interlocutor of Sheriff affirmed as varied.

Orders

  • Decree for payment of £40 in damages to the pursuer.