Outer House – (Opinion) The pursuer child came out of a school bus and ran into the road behind it, being hit by a car driven by the defender. The court was asked as to the proprotions of responsibility.
Held: The pursuer was 90% responsible. The defender had failed to drive with reasonable care and was negligent. If he had been travelling at a reasonable speed the pursuer would have made it safely past him, so the accident would not have occurred. The ‘principal cause’ of the accident was the ‘reckless folly’ of the pursuer: either she did not look to the left before crossing or, having looked, she had failed to identify and react sensibly to the presence of the car in close proximity. On either scenario the greater cause of the accident was her movement into the path of the defender’s car at a time when it was impossible for him to avoid a collision.
Judges:
Lord Tyre
Citations:
[2012] ScotCS CSOH – 100
Links:
Statutes:
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Cited by:
At Outer House – Jackson v Murray and Another SCS 27-Dec-2012
Extra Division, Inner House. The pursuer, a child, alighted from a school bus, and, on emerging into the road was hit by a car driven by the defender, suffering serious injury. She now appealed against a finding that she was 90% responsible for her . .
At Outer House – Jackson v Murray and Another SC 18-Feb-2015
Child not entirely free of responsibility
The claimant child, left a school bus and stepped out from behind it into the path of the respondent’s car. She appealed against a finding of 70% contributory negligence.
Held: Her appeal succeeded (Majority, Lord Hodge and Lord Wilson . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury
Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460439
