Little v Glen & Ors [2014] ScotCS CSIH_99 (21 November 2014)

Little v Glen & Ors [2014] ScotCS CSIH_99 (21 November 2014)

The Lord Ordinary was entitled, on the facts found, to conclude that the first defender was not negligent. The defender's failure to brake immediately upon seeing the pursuer did not amount to negligence in the circumstances, given the emergency, the unexpected appearance of the pedestrian, and the defender's attempt to avoid the collision by swerving. No material error of law or fact was identified.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSIH_99
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: Richard Little; Defenders and Respondents: Ian Glen and Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Lord Ordinary's Decision
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's decision affirmed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Standard of Care for Drivers, Foreseeability, Appellate Review of Fact Finding, Contributory Negligence
Tort Personal Injury Road Traffic Law Negligence Standard of Care for Drivers Foreseeability Appellate Review of Fact Finding 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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Little

Pursuer and Reclaimer

Ian Glen and Others

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Lord Ordinary's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defender (driver) was negligent in failing to brake upon becoming aware of the pursuer (pedestrian)
  2. 2 Whether the Lord Ordinary erred in law or fact in finding no negligence
  3. 3 Whether the presence of a pedestrian was reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The Lord Ordinary was entitled, on the facts found, to conclude that the first defender was not negligent. The defender's failure to brake immediately upon seeing the pursuer did not amount to negligence in the circumstances, given the emergency, the unexpected appearance of the pedestrian, and the defender's attempt to avoid the collision by swerving. No material error of law or fact was identified.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's decision affirmed.

Orders

  • Reclaiming motion refused
  • Question of expenses continued