M'Allester v. Glasgow Corporation [1917] ScotLR 401 (06 March 1917)

M'Allester v. Glasgow Corporation [1917] ScotLR 401 (06 March 1917)

The accident was caused by the pursuer's contributory negligence in attempting to cross in front of an approaching tramway car without maintaining adequate observation of its position and speed. The pursuer failed to give way to main road traffic and took an unnecessary risk, directly resulting in the collision. The jury's verdict in favour of the pursuer was contrary to the evidence and legal principles governing contributory negligence.

Citation
[1917] ScotLR 401
Parties
Pursuer: Robert M'Allester; Defenders: Glasgow Corporation
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 March 1917
Procedural Posture
Reparation (personal Injury) / Appeal Against Jury Verdict; Motion to Set Aside Verdict
Outcome
verdict set aside; new trial granted
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Road Traffic Accidents, Duty of Care, Reparation
Tort Personal Injury Negligence Contributory Negligence Road Traffic Accidents Duty of Care Reparation

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

Robert M'Allester

Pursuer

Glasgow Corporation

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Reparation (personal Injury) / Appeal Against Jury Verdict; Motion to Set Aside Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer was guilty of contributory negligence in emerging from a side street and attempting to cross in front of an approaching tramway car
  2. 2 Whether the defenders (tramway car operators) were at fault for failing to avoid the accident

Ratio Decidendi

The accident was caused by the pursuer's contributory negligence in attempting to cross in front of an approaching tramway car without maintaining adequate observation of its position and speed. The pursuer failed to give way to main road traffic and took an unnecessary risk, directly resulting in the collision. The jury's verdict in favour of the pursuer was contrary to the evidence and legal principles governing contributory negligence.

Court Disposition

verdict set aside; new trial granted

Orders

  • The verdict in favour of the pursuer is set aside.
  • A new trial is ordered.