Barty v. John Harper & Sons [1921] ScotLR 86 (23 November 1921)

Barty v. John Harper & Sons [1921] ScotLR 86 (23 November 1921)

The proximate cause of the collision was the negligence of the defenders' driver, who, despite having sufficient opportunity and space to stop and avoid the accident, chose instead to attempt to pass the dogcart in a dangerous manner. The pursuer's negligence in being on the wrong side of the road did not bar recovery because the defender's driver could have avoided the accident by exercising reasonable care.

Citation
[1921] ScotLR 86
Parties
Pursuer: William Barty; Defender: John Harper & Sons
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 November 1921
Procedural Posture
Reparation (personal Injury) / Appeal From Sheriff and Sheriff Substitute to Court of Session Inner House
Outcome
judgment for pursuer
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Proximate Cause, Duty of Care, Road Traffic Accidents
Tort Personal Injury Road Traffic Law Negligence Contributory Negligence Proximate Cause Duty of Care Road Traffic Accidents

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

Parties

William Barty

Pursuer

John Harper & Sons

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation (personal Injury) / Appeal From Sheriff and Sheriff Substitute to Court of Session Inner House

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the driver of the motor car or the driver of the dogcart was the proximate cause of the collision and resulting injuries
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's own negligence barred recovery
  3. 3 Whether the defender's driver could have avoided the accident by exercising reasonable care

Ratio Decidendi

The proximate cause of the collision was the negligence of the defenders' driver, who, despite having sufficient opportunity and space to stop and avoid the accident, chose instead to attempt to pass the dogcart in a dangerous manner. The pursuer's negligence in being on the wrong side of the road did not bar recovery because the defender's driver could have avoided the accident by exercising reasonable care.

Court Disposition

judgment for pursuer

Orders

  • Recall the interlocutors of the Sheriff-Substitute and Sheriff;
  • Find in fact that the collision was caused by the negligence of the defenders' driver;