Fowler v. The North British Railway Co. [1914] ScotLR 745 (27 June 1914)

The pursuer's averments, supported by precedent, are relevant to support a claim for damages for physical injury caused by nervous shock due to the defenders' negligence. However, the complexity of the issues makes the case unsuitable for jury trial; proof before a judge is appropriate.

Citation: [1914] ScotLR 745
Parties: Pursuer: T. B. Fowler; Defender: The North British Railway Company
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 27 June 1914
Procedural Posture: Reparation (damages) / Appeal on Relevancy and Mode of Inquiry
Outcome: Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled; jury trial disallowed; proof before judge ordered.
Legal Topics: Negligence, Nervous Shock, Proof Versus Jury Trial, Duty of Care

Tort Personal Injury Railway Law Negligence Nervous Shock Proof Versus Jury Trial Duty of Care

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

T. B. Fowler

Pursuer

The North British Railway Company

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation (damages) / Appeal on Relevancy and Mode of Inquiry

Legal Issues

1 Are the pursuer's averments of injury by nervous shock due to alleged negligence relevant in law?
2 Is the case suitable for jury trial or proof before a judge?

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled; jury trial disallowed; proof before judge ordered.

Orders

Recall of Lord Ordinary's interlocutor approving jury trial.
Remit to Lord Ordinary to allow proof of averments on record.