Smith v. Hastie [2002] ScotCS 71 (19th March, 2002)

Smith v. Hastie [2002] ScotCS 71 (19th March, 2002)

The accident was caused by the defender's fault in losing control of his vehicle and crossing onto the pursuer's side of the road. The pursuer was not contributorily negligent. The pursuer's injuries and losses were caused by the accident, but the extent of ongoing symptoms was not as severe as claimed. Damages were awarded accordingly.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 71
Parties
Pursuer: Carmel Smith; Defender: Mark Hastie
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof (trial)
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 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carmel Smith

Pursuer

Mark Hastie

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender was negligent and caused the accident
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer was contributorily negligent
  3. 3 Quantum of damages for personal injury and loss of earnings

Ratio Decidendi

The accident was caused by the defender's fault in losing control of his vehicle and crossing onto the pursuer's side of the road. The pursuer was not contributorily negligent. The pursuer's injuries and losses were caused by the accident, but the extent of ongoing symptoms was not as severe as claimed. Damages were awarded accordingly.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the pursuer

Orders

  • Defender found liable for the accident
  • Pursuer awarded damages of £5,500 for solatium (£4,000 past, £1,500 future)