Chalmers v Strathclyde Fire Board [1999] ScotCS 89 (25 March 1999)

Chalmers v Strathclyde Fire Board [1999] ScotCS 89 (25 March 1999)

The driver exercised reasonable care in the circumstances, was entitled to proceed as he did, and immediate braking did not involve any obvious or material foreseeable risk to those within the fire appliance. The pursuer's injury was not caused by negligence.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 89
Parties
Pursuer: Robert Graham Chalmers; Defender: Strathclyde Fire Board
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof Restricted to Merits
Outcome
decree of absolvitor
Legal Topics
Negligence, Employer's Liability, Duty of Care, Emergency Vehicle Operation
Tort Employment Law Negligence Employer's Liability Duty of Care Emergency Vehicle Operation

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Graham Chalmers

Pursuer

Strathclyde Fire Board

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof Restricted to Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the pursuer's injury caused by the negligence of the fire appliance driver?
  2. 2 Did the driver breach his duty of care by proceeding through the junction or braking suddenly?

Ratio Decidendi

The driver exercised reasonable care in the circumstances, was entitled to proceed as he did, and immediate braking did not involve any obvious or material foreseeable risk to those within the fire appliance. The pursuer's injury was not caused by negligence.

Court Disposition

decree of absolvitor

Orders

  • Sustain second and third plea-in-law for defenders
  • Repel first pleas-in-law for pursuer