Vincent Kemp (AP) v Secretary Of State For Scotland [1999] ScotCS 80 (18 March 1999)

Vincent Kemp (AP) v Secretary Of State For Scotland [1999] ScotCS 80 (18 March 1999)

The defender was at fault in creating and maintaining a raised kerb that, in the lighting conditions at the time, presented a serious and foreseeable hazard to pedestrians, including those not exercising perfect care. The kerb's design was not justified by engineering necessity or standards, and its hazard was corroborated by expert evidence. The pursuer's fall was caused by tripping on the kerb, and while he was under the influence of alcohol, this did not amount to contributory negligence sufficient to defeat his claim.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 80
Parties
Pursuer: Vincent Kemp (AP); Defender: Secretary Of State For Scotland
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Proof on Liability and Contributory Negligence
Outcome
Defender found liable for pursuer's injuries; judgment for pursuer.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Highway Authority Duty, Road Design Hazard
Tort Personal Injury Public Authority Liability Negligence Contributory Negligence Highway Authority Duty Road Design Hazard

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

Parties

Vincent Kemp (AP)

Pursuer

Secretary Of State For Scotland

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Proof on Liability and Contributory Negligence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender was at fault in the design and maintenance of the raised kerb on Admiralty Road, Rosyth, causing a foreseeable hazard to pedestrians.
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's own actions, including alcohol consumption, amounted to contributory negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The defender was at fault in creating and maintaining a raised kerb that, in the lighting conditions at the time, presented a serious and foreseeable hazard to pedestrians, including those not exercising perfect care. The kerb's design was not justified by engineering necessity or standards, and its hazard was corroborated by expert evidence. The pursuer's fall was caused by tripping on the kerb, and while he was under the influence of alcohol, this did not amount to contributory negligence sufficient to defeat his claim.

Court Disposition

Defender found liable for pursuer's injuries; judgment for pursuer.

Orders

  • Defender to pay agreed damages of £750,000 to pursuer, inclusive of interest to date of decree.