Buck (AP) v Ainslie & Anor [2017] ScotCS CSOH_73 (03 May 2017)

Buck (AP) v Ainslie & Anor [2017] ScotCS CSOH_73 (03 May 2017)

The pursuer failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the first defender, exercising reasonable care, would have been able to avoid colliding with him. There was insufficient evidence that the pursuer was visible to the first defender in time to avoid the accident, and the expert evidence on perception and response time was inconclusive. The standard of care required is that of a reasonable driver, not an ideal one, and the first defender's actions did not breach that standard.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSOH_73
Parties
Pursuer: Leslie Buck (AP); First Defender: Jane Anne Ainslie; Second Defender: CIS General Insurance Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action (road Traffic Accident) / Proof on Liability
Outcome
Decree of absolvitor granted in respect of both defenders; pursuer's claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Duty of Care, Standard of Care, Pedestrian Accident, Liability, Absence of Evidence, Burden of Proof
Tort Personal Injury Road Traffic Law Negligence Contributory Negligence Duty of Care Standard of Care Pedestrian Accident +3 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leslie Buck (AP)

Pursuer

Jane Anne Ainslie

First Defender

CIS General Insurance Ltd

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action (road Traffic Accident) / Proof on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defender was negligent in colliding with the pursuer
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer contributed to the accident by his own negligence
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer was visible to the first defender in time to avoid the collision

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the first defender, exercising reasonable care, would have been able to avoid colliding with him. There was insufficient evidence that the pursuer was visible to the first defender in time to avoid the accident, and the expert evidence on perception and response time was inconclusive. The standard of care required is that of a reasonable driver, not an ideal one, and the first defender's actions did not breach that standard.

Court Disposition

Decree of absolvitor granted in respect of both defenders; pursuer's claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Decree of absolvitor for both defenders
  • No damages awarded to pursuer