Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Subject_1 Reparation Subject_2 Negligence Subject_3 Collision Subject_4 Motor Lorry and Tramway Car — Duties of Drivers on “Main” Road and “Side” Road.
Process — Jury Trial — Hearing on Rule for New Trial — Rule Granted at Instance of One of Two Defenders — Necessity for Pursuer's Concurrence. Facts: When a vehicle is entering a road from another road there is a duty upon the driver to drive in such a way as will not endanger the traffic using the other road, and the traffic on the other road must accommodate itself to the entrance of the vehicle so as not to endanger it, and has no right to disregard it and continue course and speed.
Circumstances in which the Court refused to disturb a verdict of a jury finding that the driver of a tramway car was responsible for a collision between the tramway car and a lorry Page: 324 ↓
Macandrew v. Tillard , 1909 S.C. 78 , 46 S.L.R. III ; and Robertson v. Wilson , 1912 S.C. 1276 , 49 S.L.R. 916 , commented on .
In an action of damages for personal injuries against two defenders the pursuer obtained a verdict against one of the defenders. The unsuccessful defender moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to evidence. A rule was granted, and at the hearing the Court intimated that if the pursuer did not support the verdict it could not be sustained. The pursuer thereupon intimated that she supported the verdict and intended to concur in the argument for the successful defenders.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.