Tait v. Robert Trotter & Sons [1917] ScotLR 298 (01 March 1917)

Tait v. Robert Trotter & Sons [1917] ScotLR 298 (01 March 1917)

The defenders were negligent in failing to keep their traction-engine to the side of the road and in not affixing lights to indicate the true width of the vehicle, contrary to statutory requirements. There was no contributory negligence by the pursuer, as he complied with lighting regulations and acted reasonably in the circumstances.

Citation
[1917] ScotLR 298
Parties
Pursuer: Robert Tait; Defenders: Robert Trotter & Sons
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 March 1917
Procedural Posture
Reparation (damages for Negligence) / Appeal to Court of Session Inner House, Second Division
Outcome
judgment for the pursuer; interlocutors of the Sheriff and Sheriff-Substitute recalled
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Statutory Duties of Vehicle Operators, Lighting Requirements for Vehicles, Road Safety
Tort Road Traffic Law Statutory Interpretation Negligence Contributory Negligence Statutory Duties of Vehicle Operators Lighting Requirements for Vehicles Road Safety

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Tait

Pursuer

Robert Trotter & Sons

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Reparation (damages for Negligence) / Appeal to Court of Session Inner House, Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders were negligent in the operation and lighting of their traction-engine under the Locomotives Act 1865
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer was guilty of contributory negligence in the circumstances of the collision

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders were negligent in failing to keep their traction-engine to the side of the road and in not affixing lights to indicate the true width of the vehicle, contrary to statutory requirements. There was no contributory negligence by the pursuer, as he complied with lighting regulations and acted reasonably in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

judgment for the pursuer; interlocutors of the Sheriff and Sheriff-Substitute recalled

Orders

  • Defenders found liable in damages to the pursuer
  • Damages assessed at £70 to be paid by defenders to pursuer