Clarke v. Edinburgh and District Tramways Co., Ltd [1914] ScotLR 681 (11 June 1914)

Clarke v. Edinburgh and District Tramways Co., Ltd [1914] ScotLR 681 (11 June 1914)

A pursuer may plead alternative and even inconsistent averments of fault in a personal injury action where she cannot know which is correct, provided each alternative, if proved, would infer liability. The action was relevant and should not have been dismissed. The pursuer was entitled to an order for disclosure of the names and addresses of the conductor and driver for the purpose of precognoscing.

Citation
[1914] ScotLR 681
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Annie Batchelor or Clarke; Consenting Party (husband of Pursuer): John Clarke; Defenders: Edinburgh and District Tramways Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 June 1914
Procedural Posture
Civil (reparation/damages for Personal Injury) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Dismissal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; interlocutors of 10th and 13th January 1914 recalled; cause remitted to Lord Ordinary to proceed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Personal Injury, Alternative Pleadings, Precognoscing Witnesses, Relevancy of Pleadings
Tort Civil Procedure Negligence Personal Injury Alternative Pleadings Precognoscing Witnesses Relevancy of Pleadings

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

Mrs Annie Batchelor or Clarke

Pursuer

John Clarke

Consenting Party (husband of Pursuer)

Edinburgh and District Tramways Company, Limited

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil (reparation/damages for Personal Injury) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a pursuer may plead alternative and inconsistent averments of fault in a personal injury action
  2. 2 Whether the action was relevant and disclosed a case to answer
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer was entitled to an order for disclosure of names and addresses of the conductor and driver for precognoscing

Ratio Decidendi

A pursuer may plead alternative and even inconsistent averments of fault in a personal injury action where she cannot know which is correct, provided each alternative, if proved, would infer liability. The action was relevant and should not have been dismissed. The pursuer was entitled to an order for disclosure of the names and addresses of the conductor and driver for the purpose of precognoscing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; interlocutors of 10th and 13th January 1914 recalled; cause remitted to Lord Ordinary to proceed.

Orders

  • Recall of Lord Ordinary's interlocutors of 10th and 13th January 1914
  • Remit to Lord Ordinary to adjust the issue and proceed