Paterson v MacLeod & Ors [2017] ScotCS CSOH_20 (10 February 2017)

Paterson v MacLeod & Ors [2017] ScotCS CSOH_20 (10 February 2017)

The court found that the pursuer was driving at an excessive speed for the conditions and failed to react appropriately to visible hazards, amounting to contributory negligence. The stationary refuse lorry was lawfully stopped for refuse collection, and the overtaking manoeuvre by the flatbed lorry was not the primary cause. The pursuer's own actions were the predominant cause of the accident, and liability was apportioned accordingly.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSOH_20
Parties
Pursuer: Steven Paterson; First Defender: David MacLeod; Second Defender: Highland Council; Third Defender: William Fraser; Fourth Defender: AXA Corporate Solutions Assurance SA
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Judgment on Liability and Contributory Negligence
Outcome
Liability apportioned; pursuer found contributorily negligent
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Road Traffic Accident, Liability Apportionment
Tort Personal Injury Road Traffic Law Negligence Contributory Negligence Road Traffic Accident Liability Apportionment

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Paterson

Pursuer

David MacLeod

First Defender

Highland Council

Second Defender

William Fraser

Third Defender

AXA Corporate Solutions Assurance SA

Fourth Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Judgment on Liability and Contributory Negligence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer or any of the defenders were liable for the road traffic accident
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer was guilty of contributory negligence
  3. 3 Whether the actions of the refuse lorry driver and the overtaking lorry driver contributed to the accident

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the pursuer was driving at an excessive speed for the conditions and failed to react appropriately to visible hazards, amounting to contributory negligence. The stationary refuse lorry was lawfully stopped for refuse collection, and the overtaking manoeuvre by the flatbed lorry was not the primary cause. The pursuer's own actions were the predominant cause of the accident, and liability was apportioned accordingly.

Court Disposition

Liability apportioned; pursuer found contributorily negligent

Orders

  • Damages to be reduced in proportion to contributory negligence
  • No finding of primary liability against the defenders