Caroline Bridges Against Alpha Insurance A/s
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Tyre |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] CSOH 114 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 28 July 2016 |
| Year | 2016 |
| Date | 28 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | PD1617/15 |
OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
[2016] CSOH 114
PD1617/15
NOTE BY LORD TYRE
In the cause
CAROLINE BRIDGES
Pursuer;
against
ALPHA INSURANCE A/S
Defenders:
Pursuer: Allardice, Price-Marmion; Thompsons
Defenders: Murray; DAC Beachcroft Scotland LLP
28 July 2016
Introduction
[1] The pursuer in this action sustained injury at approximately 1am on 23 November 2014 when she was struck by a car driven by the defenders’ insured. At the time of the accident the pursuer was crossing Leith Walk, Edinburgh and attempting to flag down a taxi to take a friend home after a night out. On 25 November 2015, an interlocutor was pronounced on the pursuer’s motion allowing issues. An issue and a counter-issue were subsequently lodged and approved.
[2] The action proceeded to jury trial on 17 May 2016. The trial lasted four days, in the course of which evidence was led on the merits on behalf of both parties, and on quantum on behalf of the pursuer. At the close of the evidence, in accordance with the procedure described by Lord President Hamilton in Hamilton v Ferguson Transport (Spean Bridge) Ltd 2012 SC 486 at paras 76 – 79, I invited counsel for the parties to address me on the appropriate level of damages for solatium ( the quantification of other heads of claim having by then been agreed by joint minute). Counsel for the pursuer submitted that I should provide the jury with the widest possible range, with an upper end around double the top of the highest JSC Guidelines category into which the pursuer’s case might be regarded as falling. That, it was submitted, would produce an upper end figure of 2 x £58,000, ie around £120,000. Counsel also requested that I provide parties, prior to their addresses to the jury, with an indication of the spectrum that I intended to suggest in my charge. I declined to do so, taking the view that the procedure recommended in Hamilton v Ferguson Transport was intended to provide an opportunity for parties to assist the judge in his guidance to the jury rather than the other way round. I was not, moreover, attracted by the suggested approach to jury guidance. In my view it could hardly be said to be of assistance to the jury to mention a figure that was twice as high as the top of a range of awards derived from judicial guidance and previous cases. Counsel for the defender provided a helpful written submission accompanied by copies of material (previous judge and jury awards, JSC Guidelines etc) said to support a range of £15,000 to £20,000, although it was recognised that an award of up to £28,000 could be justified by the examples cited.
[3] In the course of my charge to the jury I made the following remarks:
“I cannot tell you what to award as the question is for you, not me. What I can do is give you as guidance, which is not binding on you, a range of figures that you may care to consider. I emphasise again though that it is for you to decide. You are perfectly entitled, if you think it right to do so, to choose a figure outside the range that I will mention. What I am about to say is just non-binding guidance. It is not a direction in law that you must accept; you can reject it if you want.
I can only go by my knowledge and experience of trends of awards that have been given in the courts here in cases that might be regarded as being in some ways similar to the present one, having regard both to awards by judges and awards by juries, and also to published judicial guidelines. Of course, it goes without saying that no two cases are exactly the same, and that in every case there will be factors which increase the appropriate award and factors that reduce it. I have not included in the range every single case; rather I have looked to see if patterns emerge from cases to show the sort of amounts that have been awarded in cases dealt with by courts here. I have discarded some awards which seem to me to fall outside the identified patterns and the relevant judicial guidance....
To continue reading
Request your trial