Wagner v Grant & Anor [2015] ScotCS CSOH_51 (30 April 2015)

Wagner v Grant & Anor [2015] ScotCS CSOH_51 (30 April 2015)

The accident was caused partly by the defenders' negligence in executing an inherently dangerous reversing manoeuvre in darkness, blocking the westbound lane, and partly by the pursuer's contributory negligence in failing to keep a proper lookout and slow down. The appropriate apportionment of blame is 60% to the defenders and 40% to the pursuer. The reasonable cost of prosthetics is to be calculated according to the recommendations of Mr Herdman, the defenders' expert.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSOH_51
Parties
Pursuer: Adam Wagner; First Defender: Thomas Grant; Second Defender: Arla Foods UK PLC
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof (trial) on Liability and Quantum (cost of Prosthetics)
Outcome
Liability apportioned: defenders 60%, pursuer 40%. Damages for prosthetics to be calculated per Mr Herdman's evidence. Decree to be pronounced after parties agree quantum.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Employer's Liability, Damages, Risk Assessment, Road Traffic Accident
Tort Personal Injury Road Traffic Law Negligence Contributory Negligence Employer's Liability Damages Risk Assessment +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adam Wagner

Pursuer

Thomas Grant

First Defender

Arla Foods UK PLC

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof (trial) on Liability and Quantum (cost of Prosthetics)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders were negligent in carrying out a reversing manoeuvre in darkness across a public road
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer was contributorily negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout and avoid the collision
  3. 3 What proportion of blame should be attributed to each party

Ratio Decidendi

The accident was caused partly by the defenders' negligence in executing an inherently dangerous reversing manoeuvre in darkness, blocking the westbound lane, and partly by the pursuer's contributory negligence in failing to keep a proper lookout and slow down. The appropriate apportionment of blame is 60% to the defenders and 40% to the pursuer. The reasonable cost of prosthetics is to be calculated according to the recommendations of Mr Herdman, the defenders' expert.

Court Disposition

Liability apportioned: defenders 60%, pursuer 40%. Damages for prosthetics to be calculated per Mr Herdman's evidence. Decree to be pronounced after parties agree quantum.

Orders

  • Find accident caused by fault of both pursuer and defenders; apportion blame 40% to pursuer, 60% to defenders.
  • Order damages for cost of prosthetics to be calculated in accordance with Mr Herdman's recommendations.