M'Kechnie v. Couper

Subject_1 Reparation Subject_2 Carriage Subject_3 Obligations of Driver Subject_4 Damages. Facts: A man walking on a road was injured through being struck by a spring cart which overtook him, and which, though it was dark at the time, was being driven rapidly and carried no lights. The injured man did not hear its approach owing to deafness. Held that the owner of the cart was liable in damages for the injury.

After a proof, in which it was proved that the cart carried no lights and was being rapidly driven when the collision occurred, the Sheriff-Substitute ( Mitchell ) found for the pursuer, assessed the damages at £10, and found the defender liable in the ordinary Sheriff Court expenses, though the sum recovered was within the limit of what might have been recovered in the Small Debt Court.

On appeal the Sheriff ( Muirhead ) adhered, but assessed the damages at £5, and found the pursuer entitled only to Small Debt Court expenses.

The pursuer appealed, and argued that the damages awarded him were inadequate. He quoted on the question of fault— Gibson v. Molloy , March 20, 1879, 6 R. 890 .

Lord Justice-Clerk —I have read the evidence here, and I must fairly own that I do not feel much sympathy with the argument which we have just heard from the defender. I am of opinion that the pursuer was doing nothing but what he was perfectly entitled to do when the accident happened. The driver of the milk cart was bound to take sufficient precautions to avoid all passengers on the middle of the road, where they were entitled to be. It is quite clear that he did not take such precautions, because he ran up against the pursuer.