Reclaiming Motion By Allen Woodhouse Against Lochs And Glens (transport) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Pentland,Lord Woolman,Lord President |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] CSIH 67 |
| Docket Number | PD59/18 |
| Date | 30 October 2020 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 30 October 2020 |
FIRST DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
[2020] CSIH 67
PD59/18
Lord President
Lord Woolman
Lord Pentland
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by LORD CARLOWAY, the LORD PRESIDENT
in the Reclaiming Motion by
ALLEN WOODHOUSE
Pursuer and Reclaimer
against
LOCHS AND GLENS (TRANSPORT) LTD
Defenders and Respondents
______________
Pursuer: Milligan QC, M Crawford; Digby Brown LLP
Defenders: Primrose QC, G S Middleton; Brodies LLP
30 October 2020
Introduction
[1] The pursuer was one of several passengers on a tour bus driven by an employee of
the defenders. It was heading northwards along the A83 when it left the road and rolled
over. Alth ough he accepted that the maxim res ipsa loquitur applied to the circumstances, the
Lord Ordinary assoilzied the defenders on the basis that negligence on the part of the driver
had not been established. The principal question is whether, on the primary facts which he
2
found, he was correct to do so. Subsidiary questions include whether the Lord Ordinary
misunderstood the effect of the speed of the bus on its handling capabilities and the
evidence on that and whether the Lord Ordinary failed to have regard to the evidence of a
driver who had been observing the bus before the accident.
The Pleadings
[2] It is admitted on record that, on 26 March 2015, the pursuer was a passenger on a
Lochs an d Glens tour bus which was being driven by the defenders’ employee, Elizabeth
Gallon, northwards on the A83 “Rest and Be Thankful”. The bus party had been at the
Ardgartan Hotel, near Arrochar, for lunch. The bus set off towards Inveraray. It stopped at
a viewpoint to enable passengers to take photographs. At about 2.00pm the bus was in the
vicinity of the junction with the B828 Glen Mhor road at a point where a predominantly
straigh t stretch of road leads to a left han d, then a right hand, “S” bend. The bus’s “nearside
wheels went (“rode”) over the roadway’s edge” and on to the sloping grass verge causing
the bus’s nearside to be “downhill of its offside”. Th e bus tipped and rolled over. The
pursuer pled a breach of the defenders’ duty at common law to take reasonable care for the
pursuer. As the case proceeded un der the rules for abbreviated pleadings in the sheriff
court (OCR Rule 36.B1(1)), prior to it being remitted to the Court of Session, no further
specification of fault was given. In due course, although not expressly foreshadowed in his
pleadings, the pursuer was to rely on the maxim res ipsa loquitur.
[3] According to the defenders, after th e departure from the viewpoint, the driver
stopped again some 500 metres furt her on, in order to close the bus’s door. She continued
for anoth er 100 metres, at a maximum speed of between 34 and 42 mph, wh en:
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
Cameron v Swan
...CSIH 97; 2020 SC 209; 2020 SLT 259; 2020 Rep LR 43 Whittle v Bennett [2006] EWCA Civ 1538 Woodhouse v Lochs and Glens (Transport) Ltd [2020] CSIH 67; 2020 SLT 1203; 2021 SCLR 1; 2021 Rep LR 2 Textbooks etc referred to: Department for Transport, The Highway Code (TSO, Norwich, June 2015) (On......
-
Appeal By Craig Hill Against Angus Council
...upon: AW, as legal representative of LW v Greater Glasgow Health Board [2017] CSIH 58, Woodhouse v Lochs and Glens (Transport) Limited [2020] CSIH 67, Powell v Streatham Manor Nursing Home [1935] AC 243, Benmax v Austin Motor Company Limited [1955] AC 370. He acknowledged that the authoriti......