Howitt v Alexander & Sons
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 20 January 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 18. |
| Date | 20 January 1948 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - First Division) |
1ST DIVISION.
Lord Blades.
ExpensesDivided successContributory negligenceApportionment of liability for damageWhether expenses should be apportioned in same ratio as liabilityLaw Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act, 1945 (8 and 9 Geo. VI, cap. 28), sec. 1.
In an action of damages for personal injuries, in which the jury, in accordance with sec. 1 of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act, 1945, apportioned the blame for the accident in the ratio of one-quarter to the pursuer and three-quarters to the defenders, the Lord Ordinary refused the defenders' motion for an apportionment of the expenses, and awarded full expenses to the pursuer.
Held, affirming the decision of the Lord Ordinary, that the award of expenses was a matter within his discretion, and that there was no rule that there must be some reduction of expenses awarded to the pursuer in cases where there had been a reduction of damages under a finding of contributory negligence.
George Howitt brought an action against W. Alexander & Sons, Limited, for damages for injuries sustained by him through being run over by an omnibus belonging to the defenders and driven by one of their employees. The case was tried by Lord Blades and a jury. The jury apportioned the blame for the accident in the ratio of one-quarter to the pursuer and three-quarters to the defenders, and they accordingly awarded to the pursuer three-quarters of the damages to which he would have been entitled if he had not been in fault at all.1
The pursuer moved for the expenses of the action. The defenders opposed this motion and, on the view that expenses should be apportioned in terms of the jury's verdict, contended that an appropriate award would be to find the pursuer entitled to only one-half of his expenses.
On 20th November 1947 the Lord Ordinary (Blades) granted the pursuer's motion and found him entitled to the expenses of the action.
LORD PRESIDENT (Cooper).By a verdict of a jury the pursuer in this case was found entitled to 1800 of damages, arrived at on the basis that the blame for the accident in which he was injured was attributable to the defenders to the extent of three-fourths and to the pursuer to the extent of one-fourth. The Lord Ordinary, when asked to apply the jury's verdict, found the pursuer entitled to full expenses for the reasons explained in the opinion now before us, and rejected the suggestion advanced for the defenders that the award of expenses...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lever v Greenock Motor Services Company
...of contributory negligence, the jury find the pursuer at fault to a greater extent than the defenders. Howitt v. Alexander & Sons, 1948 S. C. 154,followed. Mrs Elizabeth Head or Lever widow, brought an action against the Greenock Motor Services Company, Limited, for damages arising out of t......
-
Cwr Against Lvbr
...The decision of a sheriff on expenses is classically a discretionary matter rarely disturbed on appeal (Howitt v W Alexander and Sons Ltd 1948 SC 154 and Little). The sheriff had heard the proof and detailed submissions on expenses. He was uniquely placed to decide what award of expenses wo......
- The Antares II (Victory)
-
Appeal By M Against M
...The sheriff was not asked to produce a note of his reasons. The general rule is that expenses follow success (Howitt v Alexa nder & Sons 1948 SC 154). The sheriff determined that neither party had been wholly successful. For this court to interfere with the decision, it would require to be ......