Mccusker v. Cunningham & Anor [2008] ScotCS CSOH_32 (20 February 2008)

Mccusker v. Cunningham & Anor [2008] ScotCS CSOH_32 (20 February 2008)

On the balance of probabilities, the accident was caused by the first defender's vehicle drifting onto the wrong side of the road and colliding head-on with the minibus. There was insufficient evidence to support the contention that the second defender's overtaking manoeuvre caused or contributed to the collision. The first defender is solely liable for the pursuer's damages.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSOH_32
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Rosemary Catherine McCusker; First Defender: David Cunningham; Second Defender: Alan Cameron Glen
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Damages for Personal Injury / Proof (trial on the Merits)
Outcome
Judgment for the pursuer against the first defender. The first defender is liable to pay damages to the pursuer. The second defender is not liable.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Causation, Apportionment of Liability, Damages, Road Traffic Accident
Tort Personal Injury Road Traffic Law Negligence Causation Apportionment of Liability Damages Road Traffic Accident

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

Parties

Mrs Rosemary Catherine McCusker

Pursuer

David Cunningham

First Defender

Alan Cameron Glen

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Damages for Personal Injury / Proof (trial on the Merits)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accident was caused by the sole fault of the first defender or the second defender
  2. 2 Whether the second defender's overtaking manoeuvre caused or contributed to the collision
  3. 3 Whether the first defender lost control or fell asleep at the wheel

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities, the accident was caused by the first defender's vehicle drifting onto the wrong side of the road and colliding head-on with the minibus. There was insufficient evidence to support the contention that the second defender's overtaking manoeuvre caused or contributed to the collision. The first defender is solely liable for the pursuer's damages.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the pursuer against the first defender. The first defender is liable to pay damages to the pursuer. The second defender is not liable.

Orders

  • First defender to pay the agreed sum of damages to the pursuer.
  • No finding of liability against the second defender.