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.
Mrs Susan Bradley or M'Crae, widow of Patrick M'Crae, New Mains, as an individual and as tutrix for her pupil children, pursuer , brought an action against Thomas Bryson, farmer, Cambuslang, and Joseph Callaghan, contractor, East Kilbride, conjunctly and severally, defenders , for damages in respect of the death of her husband, who while travelling on a motor lorry belonging to the defender Callaghan was killed as the result of a collision between the lorry and a motor car belonging to the defender Bryson.
Prior to the raising of the action the defender Bryson took up the position that there had been no collision between the vehicles. In his defences he did not admit that the collision between the vehicles had taken place, but averred that if there had been a collision it was not due to any negligence on his part. He did not expressly blame the defender Callaghan. The latter in his defences admitted that there had been a collision, and averred that it was entirely due to the fault of the defender Bryson.
The case was heard before a jury, when a verdict was returned for the pursuer against the defender Bryson and for the defender Callaghan. On 26th January 1923 the Lord Ordinary applied the verdict, decerned against the defender Bryson for payment of the damages assessed by the jury, assoilzied the defender Joseph Callaghan, and found the defender Bryson liable to the pursuer and to the defender Joseph Callaghan in expenses.
Opinion .—“In this case the pursuer Mrs M'Crae, as an individual and also as tutrix of her three pupil children, sued two defenders—the defender Bryson and the defender Callaghan—jointly and severally, for damages in respect of the death of her husband as the result of a collision between the defender Bryson's motor car and the defender Callaghan's motor lorry, claiming £1000 for herself and £500 for each of the three children, representing £2500 in all.
Both defenders defended; each denied liability; the defender Bryson did not admit that any collision took place between his car and the lorry, and he did not expressly attribute blame to the defender Callaghan; the defender Callaghan on the other hand admitted that there was a collision and blamed the defender Bryson for causing the collision.
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.