Ratter v. Halcrow [2005] ScotCS CSOH_166 (13 December 2005)

Ratter v. Halcrow [2005] ScotCS CSOH_166 (13 December 2005)

The accident was caused solely by the fault of the defender, who walked into the path of the pursuer's motorcycle. The pursuer was not at fault or contributorily negligent, having been properly positioned and travelling at a safe speed. The pursuer is entitled to full damages for her losses.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSOH_166
Parties
Pursuer: Amy Margaret Ratter; Defender: Margaret Halcrow
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim / Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Judgment for the pursuer
Legal Topics
Road Traffic Accident, Negligence, Damages, Contributory Negligence
Tort Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident Negligence Damages 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amy Margaret Ratter

Pursuer

Margaret Halcrow

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim / Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender was at fault for the accident
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer was contributorily negligent
  3. 3 Quantum of damages to be awarded

Ratio Decidendi

The accident was caused solely by the fault of the defender, who walked into the path of the pursuer's motorcycle. The pursuer was not at fault or contributorily negligent, having been properly positioned and travelling at a safe speed. The pursuer is entitled to full damages for her losses.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the pursuer

Orders

  • Defender to pay the pursuer £184,728 with interest at 8% per annum from date of decree until payment
  • Defender's pleas-in-law repelled