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.
Held ( dis . Lord Anderson) that the accident was due to the contributory negligence of the pursuer, and the verdict in his favour set aside .
Robert M'Allester, motor driver, Glasgow, pursuer , brought an action against the Corporation of the City of Glasgow, defenders , for payment of the sum of £550 as damages for personal injuries resulting from a collision between a motor taxi-cab driven by himself and one of the defenders' tramway cars.
The defenders pleaded, inter alia —“3. Any injuries sustained by the pursuer having been caused or materially contributed to by the fault of the pursuer, the defenders should be assoilzied.”
On 10th January 1917 the action was tried before Lord Anderson and a jury, who returned a verdict for the pursuer. The defenders, in the Second Division, moved for and obtained a rule upon the pursuer to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside.
The pursuer argued on contributory negligence—The Court must look to the proximate cause of the accident. Even if the pursuer was originally at fault, the defenders were liable if they made no attempt to avert the accident by the exercise of reasonable care. The question whether the pursuer had reasonable cause to think that he could cross the car rails before the tramway car should reach him was a pure question of fact for the jury and depended entirely on the speed, and distance from the pursuer, of the tramway car. Accordingly the jury's verdict ought to stand.
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.