Doonan v DHL International (UK) Ltd [1999] ScotCS 12 (12 January 1999)

Doonan v DHL International (UK) Ltd [1999] ScotCS 12 (12 January 1999)

Given the age of the child and the nature of the accident, it is appropriate to allow the pursuer to rely on alternative averments on an 'esto' basis. The pleadings provide sufficient notice of the general nature of the case, and it is in the interests of justice to allow proof before answer rather than exclude averments at this stage.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 12
Parties
Pursuer: Michelle Doonan; Defenders: D. H. L. International (U.K.) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 January 1999
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury/reparation / Procedure Roll (plea to Relevancy); Interlocutory Decision Allowing Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Proof before Answer allowed; pursuer's amendment permitted; defenders' plea to relevancy continued to proof.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Pleading Requirements, Road Traffic Accident, Child Pedestrian
Tort Personal Injury Road Traffic Law Negligence Duty of Care Pleading Requirements Road Traffic Accident Child Pedestrian

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michelle Doonan

Pursuer

D. H. L. International (U.K.) Limited

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury/reparation / Procedure Roll (plea to Relevancy); Interlocutory Decision Allowing Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's averments, including the 'esto' case and duties relating to speed, lookout, and warning, are relevant and provide fair notice to the defenders; whether the case should proceed to proof before answer.

Ratio Decidendi

Given the age of the child and the nature of the accident, it is appropriate to allow the pursuer to rely on alternative averments on an 'esto' basis. The pleadings provide sufficient notice of the general nature of the case, and it is in the interests of justice to allow proof before answer rather than exclude averments at this stage.

Court Disposition

Proof before Answer allowed; pursuer's amendment permitted; defenders' plea to relevancy continued to proof.

Orders

  • Allow Proof before Answer on the pleadings as amended.
  • Pursuer permitted to amend pleadings to add duty to sound warning.