Phillips & Anor v. First Glasgow (No. 1) Ltd [2009] ScotSC 5 (01 March 2008)

Phillips & Anor v. First Glasgow (No. 1) Ltd [2009] ScotSC 5 (01 March 2008)

The bus driver was not negligent because he acted reasonably in the emergency by braking to avoid a dog, having considered the safety of his passengers and the possibility of a child following the dog. The defenders rebutted any presumption of negligence by providing a credible and reasonable explanation for the sudden braking, and thus are not liable for the pursuers' injuries.

Citation
[2009] ScotSC 5
Parties
First Pursuer: Gladys Philips; Second Pursuer: Mary Glasgow; Defender: First Glasgow (No 1) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Defenders assoilzied (absolved) from the craves of the writ; pursuers found liable in expenses as Assisted Persons, but liability modified to nil.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Public Transport Liability, Emergency Braking, Passenger Safety
Tort Personal Injury Transport Law Negligence Duty of Care Public Transport Liability Emergency Braking Passenger Safety

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

Parties

Gladys Philips

First Pursuer

Mary Glasgow

Second Pursuer

First Glasgow (No 1) Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bus driver was negligent in braking suddenly to avoid a dog, causing injury to standing passengers
  2. 2 Whether the defenders are liable for injuries sustained by the pursuers as a result of the sudden braking

Ratio Decidendi

The bus driver was not negligent because he acted reasonably in the emergency by braking to avoid a dog, having considered the safety of his passengers and the possibility of a child following the dog. The defenders rebutted any presumption of negligence by providing a credible and reasonable explanation for the sudden braking, and thus are not liable for the pursuers' injuries.

Court Disposition

Defenders assoilzied (absolved) from the craves of the writ; pursuers found liable in expenses as Assisted Persons, but liability modified to nil.

Orders

  • Plea in law 2 for the defenders sustained; defenders assoilzied from the craves of the writ.
  • Pursuers found liable to defenders in expenses as Assisted Persons, with liability modified to nil.