FAIRLEY ELIZABETH FAIRLEY AGAINST EDINBURGH TRAMS LTD AND THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL; AND IAIN LOWDEAN AGAINST TRANSPORT INITIATIVES EDINBURGH LTD AND THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL [2019] ScotCS CSOH_50 (28 June 2019)

FAIRLEY ELIZABETH FAIRLEY AGAINST EDINBURGH TRAMS LTD AND THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL; AND IAIN LOWDEAN AGAINST TRANSPORT INITIATIVES EDINBURGH LTD AND THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL [2019] ScotCS CSOH_50 (28 June 2019)

The defenders owed a duty of care to cyclists to minimise foreseeable risks arising from the design and layout of tram tracks. The risk of harm from crossing tram tracks at shallow angles was well known and specifically identified in audits and design documentation. The defenders breached their duty by failing to implement measures to ensure cyclists could cross at safe angles, and by guiding them to cross at acute angles. The risks were not obvious to all cyclists and could not reasonably be avoided by dismounting or slowing further. The pursuers were not contributorily negligent in the circumstances.

Citation
[2019] ScotCS CSOH_50
Parties
Pursuer: Elizabeth Fairley; First Defender: Edinburgh Trams Limited; Second Defender: The City of Edinburgh Council; Pursuer: Iain Lowdean; First Defender: Transport Initiatives Edinburgh Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Judgment After Proof
Outcome
liability established against defenders; no contributory negligence
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Contributory Negligence, Design of Road Infrastructure, Foreseeability, Cycling Accidents
Tort Personal Injury Local Government Law Negligence Duty of Care Contributory Negligence Design of Road Infrastructure Foreseeability +1 more

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

Parties

Elizabeth Fairley

Pursuer

Edinburgh Trams Limited

First Defender

The City of Edinburgh Council

Second Defender

Iain Lowdean

Pursuer

Transport Initiatives Edinburgh Limited

First Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the defenders owe a duty of care to cyclists regarding the design and layout of tram tracks?
  2. 2 Was the risk of harm to cyclists foreseeable and significant at the accident locations?
  3. 3 Did the defenders breach their duty by guiding cyclists to cross tram tracks at a shallow angle?

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders owed a duty of care to cyclists to minimise foreseeable risks arising from the design and layout of tram tracks. The risk of harm from crossing tram tracks at shallow angles was well known and specifically identified in audits and design documentation. The defenders breached their duty by failing to implement measures to ensure cyclists could cross at safe angles, and by guiding them to cross at acute angles. The risks were not obvious to all cyclists and could not reasonably be avoided by dismounting or slowing further. The pursuers were not contributorily negligent in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

liability established against defenders; no contributory negligence

Orders

  • Defenders found liable for pursuers' injuries
  • Quantum agreed by joint minute; damages to be paid as per agreement